Christoph Hirche1, Lingyun Xiong1,2, Christian Heffinger1, Matthias Münzberg3, Sebastian Fischer1, Ulrich Kneser1, Thomas Kremer1. 1. 1 Department of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Burn Center, BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, University of Heidelberg, Ludwigshafen, Germany. 2. 2 Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Union Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Hubei, China. 3. 3 Department of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, University of Heidelberg, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Conventional non-vascularized bone grafts as well as vascularized bone grafts are used to treat scaphoid non-union (SN). Due to limited available studies, the field of application using both grafts for SN still remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate a treatment algorithm for the use of both vascularized versus non-vascularized bone grafts based on clinical outcomes and quality of life (QoL) to improve the level of evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on a retrospective cohort study, including 28 patients with vascularized and 45 patients with conventional bone grafts, functional parameters, radiological outcome, Mayo-wrist-score, and QoL by SF-36 were applied to statistically compare the outcome of these two techniques. RESULTS: Time between last procedure or trauma and study group scaphoid reconstruction was almost double in the vascularized bone grafting group. Comparable union rates were achieved with vascularized as well as non-vascularized bone grafts. Significant differences were observed between both groups for grip strength and radial-ulnar active range of motion. Further functional outcomes, radiological outcomes as well as QoL were found similar for both techniques in patients with surgical union. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: In order to achieve comparable and appropriate treatment results, vascularized bone grafts are recommended for patients with delayed treatment, impaired scaphoid vascularity, and revision surgery. Even in preselected, complex cases, the results are comparable to conventional grafts, which are the basis for further patient education and approve the powerful role of surgical angiogenesis of vascularized bone grafts.
INTRODUCTION: Conventional non-vascularized bone grafts as well as vascularized bone grafts are used to treat scaphoid non-union (SN). Due to limited available studies, the field of application using both grafts for SN still remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate a treatment algorithm for the use of both vascularized versus non-vascularized bone grafts based on clinical outcomes and quality of life (QoL) to improve the level of evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on a retrospective cohort study, including 28 patients with vascularized and 45 patients with conventional bone grafts, functional parameters, radiological outcome, Mayo-wrist-score, and QoL by SF-36 were applied to statistically compare the outcome of these two techniques. RESULTS: Time between last procedure or trauma and study group scaphoid reconstruction was almost double in the vascularized bone grafting group. Comparable union rates were achieved with vascularized as well as non-vascularized bone grafts. Significant differences were observed between both groups for grip strength and radial-ulnar active range of motion. Further functional outcomes, radiological outcomes as well as QoL were found similar for both techniques in patients with surgical union. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: In order to achieve comparable and appropriate treatment results, vascularized bone grafts are recommended for patients with delayed treatment, impaired scaphoid vascularity, and revision surgery. Even in preselected, complex cases, the results are comparable to conventional grafts, which are the basis for further patient education and approve the powerful role of surgical angiogenesis of vascularized bone grafts.
Entities:
Keywords:
bone graft; functional outcome; non-union; non-vascularized; quality of life; scaphoid; therapeutic algorithm; vascularized
Authors: Maximilian M Menger; Matthias W Laschke; Andreas K Nussler; Michael D Menger; Tina Histing Journal: Angiogenesis Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 10.658