S Grechenig1, Michael Worlicek2,3, R Penzkofer4, F Zeman5, R Kujat1, P Heiss6, G Pattappa1, J Zellner1, P Angele1. 1. Clinic of Trauma Surgery, University of Regensburg, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. 2. Clinic of Trauma Surgery, University of Regensburg, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. michael.worlicek@ukr.de. 3. Centre for Clinical Studies, University Hospital Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. michael.worlicek@ukr.de. 4. Engineering and Technology, University of Applied Sciences Regensburg, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. 5. Centre for Clinical Studies, University Hospital Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. 6. Clinic of Radiology, University of Regensburg, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Bone block augmentation from the iliac crest can be used for reconstruction of the osteochondral unit to restore the underlying subchondral bone upon restoration of the cartilaginous layer via matrix-induced chondrocyte transplantation. To critically understand the successful restoration of the defect, biomechanical and histological analysis of the implanted bone blocks is required. The aim of the study was to analyse the ability of the bone block technique to restore huge bone defects by mimicking the physiological subchondral zone. METHODS: The experiments were performed using lateral femoral condyles and iliac crest bone grafts from the same cadavers (n = 6) preserved using the Thiel method. CT scans were made to evaluate bone pathology. Bone mineral density of all specimens was evaluated in the femoral head prior to testing. A series of tests were conducted for each pair of specimens. A static compression test was performed using an electro dynamic testing machine with maximal strength and failure behavior analyzed. Biomechanical tests were performed in the medial-lateral direction for iliac crest and for femoral condyles with and without removal of the cartilage layer. Histological analysis was performed on decalcified specimens for comparison of the condyle at lesion site and the graft. RESULTS: No significant difference in failure load could be found for iliac crest (53.3-180.5 N) and femoral condyle samples upon cartilage removal (38.5-175.1 N) (n.s.). The femoral condyles with an intact cartilage layer showed significantly higher loads (118.3-260.4N) compared to the other groups indicating that native or regenerated cartilage can further increase the failure load (p < 0.05). Bone mineral density significantly influenced failure load in all study groups (p < 0.05). Histological similarity of the cancellous bone in the femoral condyle and in the iliac crest was observed. However, within the subchondral zone, there was a higher density of sponge like organized trabeculae in the bone samples from the iliac crest. Tide mark was only detected at the osteochondral interface in femoral condyles. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that, bone blocks derived from the iliac crest allow a biomechanical appropriate and stable restoration of huge bony defects by resembling the subchondral zone of the femoral condyle. Therefore, bone augmentation from the iliac crest combined with matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte transplantation seems to be a reasonable method to treat these challenging injuries.
PURPOSE:Bone block augmentation from the iliac crest can be used for reconstruction of the osteochondral unit to restore the underlying subchondral bone upon restoration of the cartilaginous layer via matrix-induced chondrocyte transplantation. To critically understand the successful restoration of the defect, biomechanical and histological analysis of the implanted bone blocks is required. The aim of the study was to analyse the ability of the bone block technique to restore huge bone defects by mimicking the physiological subchondral zone. METHODS: The experiments were performed using lateral femoral condyles and iliac crest bone grafts from the same cadavers (n = 6) preserved using the Thiel method. CT scans were made to evaluate bone pathology. Bone mineral density of all specimens was evaluated in the femoral head prior to testing. A series of tests were conducted for each pair of specimens. A static compression test was performed using an electro dynamic testing machine with maximal strength and failure behavior analyzed. Biomechanical tests were performed in the medial-lateral direction for iliac crest and for femoral condyles with and without removal of the cartilage layer. Histological analysis was performed on decalcified specimens for comparison of the condyle at lesion site and the graft. RESULTS: No significant difference in failure load could be found for iliac crest (53.3-180.5 N) and femoral condyle samples upon cartilage removal (38.5-175.1 N) (n.s.). The femoral condyles with an intact cartilage layer showed significantly higher loads (118.3-260.4N) compared to the other groups indicating that native or regenerated cartilage can further increase the failure load (p < 0.05). Bone mineral density significantly influenced failure load in all study groups (p < 0.05). Histological similarity of the cancellous bone in the femoral condyle and in the iliac crest was observed. However, within the subchondral zone, there was a higher density of sponge like organized trabeculae in the bone samples from the iliac crest. Tide mark was only detected at the osteochondral interface in femoral condyles. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that, bone blocks derived from the iliac crest allow a biomechanical appropriate and stable restoration of huge bony defects by resembling the subchondral zone of the femoral condyle. Therefore, bone augmentation from the iliac crest combined with matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte transplantation seems to be a reasonable method to treat these challenging injuries.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone block augmentation; Cancellous bone grafting; Chondrocyte transplantation; Osteochondral defects
Authors: S Vijayan; W Bartlett; G Bentley; R W J Carrington; J A Skinner; R C Pollock; M Alorjani; T W R Briggs Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Br Date: 2012-04
Authors: Stefan Unger; Unger Stefan; Michael Blauth; Blauth Michael; Werner Schmoelz; Schmoelz Werner Journal: Bone Date: 2010-08-21 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Björn Gunnar Ochs; Christian Müller-Horvat; Dirk Albrecht; Bernhard Schewe; Kuno Weise; Wilhelm Karl Aicher; Bernd Rolauffs Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Lukas Zak; Silke Aldrian; Barbara Wondrasch; Christian Albrecht; Stefan Marlovits Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2012-10-29 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Yvonne E Könst; Rob J Benink; Ron Veldstra; Tjerk J van der Krieke; Marco N Helder; Barend J van Royen Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Christian Ophoven; Ferdinand C Wagner; Kaywan Izadpanah; Martin Jaeger; Gian M Salzmann; Bruno Gladbach; Hagen Schmal; Dirk Maier Journal: Arthrosc Tech Date: 2022-02-28