| Literature DB >> 28286465 |
Yeong-Jang Chen1,2, Jwo-Luen Pao1,3, Chiang Sang Chen1,3, Yu-Chun Chen1,4, Chun-Chien Chang1, Fang-Ming Hung5, Chih-Hung Chang1,4.
Abstract
Autogenous bone grafting, used to repair bone defects, is limited and the donor site can experience complications. Compared to autogenous bone graft, artificial bones have different porosity, which might make them suitable alternatives to bone grafts. Here, two porous biphasic calcium phosphate bone substitutes, namely Bicera™ and Triosite™, are used in an animal study and clinical practice to find a suitable porosity for implantation. Bicera™ and Triosite™ consist of 60 wt% hydroxyapatite and 40 wt% β-tricalcium phosphate, with the porosity of Bicera™ (82%) being higher than that of Triosite™ (70%). In the animal study, the implantation procedure was carried out on twenty-four female New Zealand rabbits. 12 weeks after implantation, the new bones were well infiltrated into the Bicera™ and Triosite™ bone grafts. In the clinical study, patients with comminuted fracture, fracture nonunion, or arthrodesis were included in the study of bone substitution with Bicera™. 27 patients underwent fracture fixation treatment. Bone healing of 22.22% (6/27) of patients happened within 3 months after the surgery, and that of 66.67% (18/27) of patients happened within 6 months. These results reveal that Bicera™ has good incorporation with host bone, and that new bone is able to grow within the porous structure, giving it high potential in the treatment of bone defects.Entities:
Keywords: Biphasic calcium phosphate; Bone substitute; Fracture healing; Hydroxyapatite
Year: 2017 PMID: 28286465 PMCID: PMC5325870 DOI: 10.1007/s40846-016-0203-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Biol Eng ISSN: 1609-0985 Impact factor: 1.553
Comparison of Bicera™ and Triosite™
| Bicera™ | Triosite™ | |
|---|---|---|
| Composition | Biphasic calcium phosphate | Biphasic calcium phosphate |
| Porosity (%) | 82.62 ± 0.02 | 70 |
| Pore size (μm) | 461.92 ± 90.66 | 450 ± 49 |
Fig. 1Implantation procedure a Exposure of lateral femoral condyle. b Bony defect 5 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length was created in both femurs using a surgical drill bit. c, d Diameter and depth of the defect were measured. e, f Bone substitute 5 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length was filled into the defect site. SEM micrographs of g, h Bicera™ and Triosite™
Fig. 2Rabbit femur condyle X-ray image. Defect without bone substitute was still an empty cavity. Both bone substitutes remained completely intact, with no significant degradation observed 12 weeks after implantation (arrow implant site)
Fig. 3Histological image of rabbit femoral condyle tissue section. In Bicera™ group, new bone (blue area) grew into porous structure of bone substitute (black area). In Triosite™ group, there was an obvious interface between bone substitute (black area) and host bone (blue area) (SB surrounding bone, NB new bone, BC Bicera™, TS Triosite™, Center central site in defect)
Fig. 4Percentage of new bone formation. 12 weeks after implantation, new bone formation occurred in up to 14% of total cavities in Bicera™. With Triosite™, new bone formation occurred in 12% of total cavities inside the material (*p ≤ 0.05)
Patient information
| No. | Age (years) | Gender | Diagnosis | Union | Time to union (months) | Duration of follow-up (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 26 | F | Scaphoid fracture | O | 16 | 16 |
| 2 | 56 | M | Tibial medial plateau fracture | O | 5 | 10 |
| 3 | 49 | F | Proximal humeral fracture | O | 3 | 4 |
| 4 | 62 | F | Clavicle fracture s/p ORIF, loss of reduction | O | 4 | 7 |
| 5 | 57 | M | Right proximal tibia fracture | X | 16 | |
| 6 | 24 | M | Distal femur fracture | O | 18 | 18 |
| 7 | 30 | M | Humeral shaft fracture s/p ORIF, implant failure | X | 9 | |
| 8 | 32 | M | Tibial plateau fracture | O | 2 | 18 |
| 9 | 46 | F | Bilateral wrist rheumatoid arthritis | O | 3 | 7 |
| 10 | 40 | F | Humeral shaft open fracture | O | 6 | 8 |
| 11 | 31 | M | Clavicle shaft fracture | O | 9 | 11 |
| 12 | 37 | M | Tibia plateau fracture | O | 8 | 18 |
| 13 | 79 | F | Distal radius fracture | O | 4 | 5 |
| 14 | 36 | M | Left tibia plateau fracture | O | 3 | 14 |
| 15 | 25 | M | Femur proximal shaft fracture | X | 15 | |
| 16 | 32 | M | Clavicle fracture | O | 6 | 12 |
| 17 | 54 | F | Tibia plateau fracture | O | 4 | 14 |
| 18 | 33 | F | Distal radius fracture | O | 3 | 11 |
| 19 | 39 | M | Distal radius fracture | O | 4 | 12 |
| 20 | 70 | F | Distal femur periprosthetic fracture | O | 6 | 26 |
| 21 | 18 | M | Clavicle fracture | O | 5 | 8 |
| 22 | 27 | M | Femoral shaft fracture | X | 13 | |
| 23 | 29 | F | Tibia plateau fracture | O | 5 | 15 |
| 24 | 48 | M | Ankle bimalleolar fracture | O | 3 | 4 |
| 25 | 66 | F | Distal radio-ulnar fracture | O | 6 | 8 |
| 26 | 74 | F | Proximal tibia fracture | X | 13 | |
| 27 | 74 | F | Supracondylar femoral fracture | O | 6 | 13 |
ORIF open reduction and internal fixation, s/p status post
Fig. 5A 40-year-old women had left humeral shaft fracture. She underwent open reduction internal fixation and Bicera™ was filled into fracture (comminuted fracture). Radiograph revealed fracture union 6 months after operation
Fig. 6A 66-year-old women had right humeral shaft and neck fracture. She underwent open reduction internal fixation via a minimally invasive technique and Bicera™ was filled into fracture. Radiograph revealed fracture union 6 months after operation