Alex Pontini1, Ivan Munivrana1, Maria Luisa Valente2, Franco Bassetto1. 1. Department of Medico-Surgical Specialties, Hand Unit, Institute of Plastic Surgery, University of Padova, Italy. 2. Department of Diagnostic Medical Sciences, Section of Special Pathology, University of Padova, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Experimental animal study to evaluate the osseo integration, inflammatory response, dislocation and the reabsorption timing of the reasorbeable Mitek(®) mini anchor, in comparison with the non reasorbeable titanium based. METHODS: TWENTY RABBITS WERE USED: divided into two groups of ten. Each animal underwent sectioning and reinsertion of the Achilles tendon bilaterally, using a reasorbeable mini anchor on one side and a controlateral non reasorbeable mini anchor. The first group was sacrificed after 40 days and the other after 120 days. The bone tendon complex was subjected to histological study. RESULTS: No histological and statistical significative difference were observed in each group, with a lower inflammation response in the reasorbeable implant. Electronic microscopy evaluation demonstrates good stability of the implant in each group. At day 120 the reasorbeable anchors were not yet disappeared. CONCLUSION: Reasorbeable Mitek mini anchors are to be considered to guarantee a similar response and similar bone stability than non reasorbeable ones.
PURPOSE: Experimental animal study to evaluate the osseo integration, inflammatory response, dislocation and the reabsorption timing of the reasorbeable Mitek(®) mini anchor, in comparison with the non reasorbeable titanium based. METHODS: TWENTY RABBITS WERE USED: divided into two groups of ten. Each animal underwent sectioning and reinsertion of the Achilles tendon bilaterally, using a reasorbeable mini anchor on one side and a controlateral non reasorbeable mini anchor. The first group was sacrificed after 40 days and the other after 120 days. The bone tendon complex was subjected to histological study. RESULTS: No histological and statistical significative difference were observed in each group, with a lower inflammation response in the reasorbeable implant. Electronic microscopy evaluation demonstrates good stability of the implant in each group. At day 120 the reasorbeable anchors were not yet disappeared. CONCLUSION: Reasorbeable Mitek mini anchors are to be considered to guarantee a similar response and similar bone stability than non reasorbeable ones.