| Literature DB >> 27019848 |
Anica Eschler1, Paula Roepenack1, Jan Roesner2, Philipp Karl Ewald Herlyn1, Heiner Martin3, Martin Reichel4, Robert Rotter1, Brigitte Vollmar5, Thomas Mittlmeier1, Georg Gradl6.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Current treatment strategies for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) focus on cement-associated solutions. Complications associated with cement application are leakage, embolism, adjacent fractures, and compromise in bony healing. This study comprises a validated VCF model in osteoporotic sheep in order to (1) evaluate a new cementless fracture fixation technique using titanium mesh implants (TMIs) and (2) demonstrate the healing capabilities in osteoporotic VCFs.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27019848 PMCID: PMC4785241 DOI: 10.1155/2016/4094161
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Intraoperative radiographic imaging preoperative (a), after fracture creation (b), and postinterventional VCF fixation by extrapedicular placement of the titanium mesh cage (c).
Figure 2Experimental setup for mechanical testing. L2 vertebra is embedded with a two-component adhesive, placed in holding devices, fixed in hydraulic clamps, and loaded by a pressure plate on the upper vertebral body end plate.
Figure 3Macroscopic (a) and micro-CT reconstruction (b) displaying bony fracture healing with cage integration.
Micro-CT histomorphometric 3D parameters of healthy bone (T0), osteoporotic bone (T1), the callus formation (T2), and its differences in both treatment groups.
| Time point | BV/TV (%) | SMI | Tb.N (mm−1) | Tb.Th (mm) | Tb.Sp (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T0 | 34.72 ± 2.54 (27.12–48.50) | 0.15 ± 0.03 (0.04–0.29) | 1.56 ± 0.05 (1.34–1.74) | 0.22 ± 0.01 (0.18–0.28) | 0.58 ± 0.04 (0.40–0.71) |
|
| |||||
| T1 | 28.83 ± 2.29 (22.60–33.09) | 0.14 ± 0.12 | 1.65 ± 0.12 | 0.17 ± 0.00 | 0.52 ± 0.01 |
|
| |||||
| T2 | 68.96 ± 4.69 | −3.68 ± 0.74 | 2.49 ± 0.13 | 0.29 ± 0.03 | 0.20 ± 0.01 |
|
| |||||
| T2G1 | 71.65 ± 5.07 | −2.56 ± 0.81 | 2.21 ± 0.06 | 0.33 ± 0.03 | 0.22 ± 0.01 |
|
| |||||
| T2G2 | 66.28 ± 7.80 | −2.81 ± 1.25 | 2.77 ± 0.17 | 0.25 ± 0.04 | 0.18 ± 0.01 |
T1 versus T0 P < 0.05; T2 versus T1 P < 0.01.
Figure 4Biomechanical data. Vertebral failure load and stiffness in the treatment groups and unfractured osteoporotic vertebrae (control).
Intraoperative vertebral body reduction in regard to body angle (KA) and vertebral height (SI) with changes in preoperative values to those after fracture creation (T1) and values after fracture creation to those postinterventional VCF fixations (T2).
| KA (°) | SI (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SEM | Range | Mean ± SEM | Range | |
| T1 | Increase in value, healthy versus fracture creation | |||
| G1 + 2 | 4.1 ± 0.8 | 1–10 | 4.5 ± 1.0 | 2–12 |
| G1 | 4.2 ± 1.1 | 1–8 | 4.2 ± 1.6 | 2–11 |
| G2 | 3.9 ± 1.3 | 2–10 | 4.9 ± 1.6 | 3–12 |
|
| ||||
| T2 | Decrease in value, fracture creation versus VCF fixation | |||
| G1 + 2 | 3.8 ± 0.5 | 2–7 | 4.1 ± 1.1 | 0–11 |
| G1 | 3.5 ± 0.9 | 1–7 | 4.3 ± 1.9 | 0–11 |
| G2 | 4.2 ± 0.7 | 3–7 | 3.9 ± 1.3 | 1–10 |