Literature DB >> 32257032

Similarities and Differences of Induced Membrane Technique Versus Wrap Bone Graft Technique.

Yongwei Wu1, Yongjun Rui1, Qudong Yin1, Zihong Zhou2, Sanjun Gu1, Fengfeng Li1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are no reports on the similarities and differences between induced membrane (IM) technique and wrap bone graft(WBG) technique.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to investigate the effects of IM technique and WBR technique in repairing segmental bone defects, and to analyze the similarities and differences between them.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 66 patients of tibial segmental bone defects treated by IM technique and WBG technique were retrospectively analyzed. Aged 13-69 years old with an average of 35.3 years old. IM technique was divided into early IM group (bone grafting at 6-8 weeks of bone cement filling) and late IM group (bone grafting after 8 weeks of bone cement filling). WBG was divided into titanium mesh group and line suturing cortical bone blocks group. There were 11 cases, 25 cases, 10 cases and 20 cases in the early IM group, late IM group, titanium mesh group and line suturing group, respectively. Bone healing, complications and functional recovery (Paley's method) were observed, the causes of nonunion and delayed union and factors affecting bone healing were analyzed.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in terms of age, sex, defect length, course, fixation method, defect location and preoperative function of adjacent joints among the 4 groups. All patients were followed up for 12-50 months, with an average of 20.1 months. The clinical healing time of early IM group, late IM group, titanium mesh group and line suturing group were (5.81 ± 0.75) months, (7.56 ± 1.66) months, (7.50 ± 0.70) months and (7.81 ± 1.81) months, respectively, showing significant differences among the 4 groups (P = 0.005). However, only early IM group had significant difference with other groups (P < 0.05), while no significance was found between late IM group and WBR group, between titanium mesh group and suture group (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in healing ration, complications and functional recovery of adjacent joints among the 4 groups (P > 0.05). There were 4 cases of nonunion and delayed union, all of which were caused by poor quantity or quality of bone graft or unstable bone graft or internal fixation.
CONCLUSION: Both IM technique and WBG technique are effective method for repairing segmental bone defects. In addition to mechanical encapsulation, early IM has biological osteogenesis. However, mechanical encapsulation is a common basis for repairing bone defects, and biological osteogenesis can enhance bone healing. © Indian Orthopaedics Association 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone healing; Induced membrane technique; Line mesh; Segmental bone defect; Titanium mesh; Wrap bone graft technique

Year:  2020        PMID: 32257032      PMCID: PMC7096604          DOI: 10.1007/s43465-019-00006-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Orthop        ISSN: 0019-5413            Impact factor:   1.251


  23 in total

1.  [Reconstruction of the long bones by the induced membrane and spongy autograft].

Authors:  A C Masquelet; F Fitoussi; T Begue; G P Muller
Journal:  Ann Chir Plast Esthet       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 0.660

2.  Treating segmental bone defects: a new technique.

Authors:  John Randolph Clements; Brian B Carpenter; J Kalieb Pourciau
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Surg       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.286

3.  Femoral lengthening over an intramedullary nail. A matched-case comparison with Ilizarov femoral lengthening.

Authors:  D Paley; J E Herzenberg; G Paremain; A Bhave
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Clinical outcomes of autogenous cancellous bone grafts obtained through the portal for tibial nailing.

Authors:  Moses Lee; Hyung-Keun Song; Kyu-Hyun Yang
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2012-03-27       Impact factor: 2.586

5.  Induced membranes secrete growth factors including vascular and osteoinductive factors and could stimulate bone regeneration.

Authors:  Ph Pelissier; A C Masquelet; R Bareille; S Mathoulin Pelissier; J Amedee
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.494

6.  Management of a long segmental defect at the proximal meta-diaphyseal junction of the tibia using a cylindrical titanium mesh cage.

Authors:  Peter A W Ostermann; Nina Haase; Alexander Rübberdt; Michael Wich; Axel Ekkernkamp
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.512

7.  Two-stage reconstruction with free vascularized soft tissue transfer and conventional bone graft for infected nonunions of the tibia: 6 patients followed for 1.5 to 5 years.

Authors:  Philip B Schöttle; Clément M L Werner; Charles E Dumont
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.717

8.  Is an impacted morselized graft in a cage an alternative for reconstructing segmental diaphyseal defects?

Authors:  Pieter H J Bullens; H W Bart Schreuder; Maarten C de Waal Malefijt; Nico Verdonschot; Pieter Buma
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-01-14       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Management of segmental skeletal defects by the induced membrane technique.

Authors:  Barakat Sayed El-Alfy; Ayman M Ali
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2015 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.251

10.  Induced membrane technique for the treatment of bone defects due to post-traumatic osteomyelitis.

Authors:  X Wang; F Luo; K Huang; Z Xie
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 5.853

View more
  2 in total

1.  Application of the induced membrane technique of tibia using extracorporeal vs. intracorporeal formation of a cement spacer: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Junhao Luo; Fanyu Bo; Jian Wang; Yongwei Wu; Yunhong Ma; Qudong Yin; Yu Liu
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 2.562

Review 2.  Bone defects are repaired by enhanced osteogenic activity of the induced membrane: a case report and literature review.

Authors:  Ye Lu; Jian Wang; Ying Yang; Qudong Yin
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-05-15       Impact factor: 2.362

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.