| Literature DB >> 32397222 |
Michele Boffano1, Nicola Ratto1, Andrea Conti1,2, Pietro Pellegrino1, Laura Rossi3, Giuseppe Perale4,5,6, Raimondo Piana1.
Abstract
Several bone grafts are available for clinical use, each with their own peculiar biological and mechanical properties. A new bone graft was obtained by combining mineral structures from natural bovine bones with bioresorbable polymers and cellular nutrients. The study aims to evaluate the clinical, biological and structural properties of this bone graft and its reliability in orthopedic oncology. 23 adult patients (age range 18-85 years) were treated between October 2016 and December 2018; the oncologicdiagnoses were heterogeneous. After surgical curettage and bone grafting, a clinical-radiological follow up was conducted. Radiographs were used to evaluate graft integration according to the usual bone healing and oncologic follow up. Local complications (infection, local recurrence, wound dehiscence, fracture or early reabsorption) were evaluated. The mean followup was of 18.34 ± 4.83 months. No fracture or infection occurred. One case of patellar Giant Cell Tumor (GCT) and one of proximal tibia low-grade chondrosarcoma recurred after about one year. Two wound dehiscences occurred (one required a local flap). Follow-up X-rays showed good to excellent graft integration in most patients (20 out of 21). The investigated graft has a mechanical and structural function that can allow early weight-bearing and avoid a preventive bone fixation (only needed in four patients in this series). The graft blocks are different for shapes and dimensions, but they can be customized by the producer or sawcut by the surgeon in the operating theatre to fit the residual bone cavity. The complication rate was low, and a rapid integration was observed with no inflammatory reaction in the surrounding tissues. Further studies are mandatory to confirm these promising results.Entities:
Keywords: bone grafting; bone regeneration; bone tumor; osteointegration
Year: 2020 PMID: 32397222 PMCID: PMC7291150 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9051388
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
SmartBone® mechanical properties (adapted from [20]).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| medium value | 1504.4 | 25.5 | 5.8 | 490.6 | 259.8 |
| standard deviation | 294.9 | 4.4 | 0.9 | 103.7 | 44.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| medium value | 100.3 | 23.8 | 7.6 | 340.6 | 242.4 |
| standard deviation | 17.4 | 4.2 | 0.9 | 63.1 | 42.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| medium value | 1914.2 | 25.8 | 2.2 | 1245.7 | 262.9 |
| standard deviation | 590.6 | 7.8 | 0.4 | 225.9 | 80.1 |
Figure 1(left) 3D reconstruction from a CT scan (Bruker system) on an exemplificative SB block 7 × 7 × 7 mm (reference bar is 1 mm); (right) H/E staining on a histologic sample taken after 2.5 years post SB implantation: the graft is completely substituted, and the osteogenesis has formed a lamellar bone with cement lines; a lot of osteocytes inside the lacunae and a good angiogenesis are evidenced (adapted from Grecchi et al. [21]).
Demographic data from patients included in the study. The seventh column refers to the percentage of bone involved in an MR or CT axial view. The following legend was applied: 0 points if intramedullary, 1 point when occupying less than ⅓ of bone diameter, 2 points if between ⅓ and ⅔ of bone diameter, and 3 points when involving more than ⅔ of bone diameter.
| Age | Sex | Diagnosis | Location | Defect Size (cm3) | Cortical Bone Involved (%) | Osteosynthesis (yes/no) | Height (cm) × Body Weight (kg) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 29 | F | UBC | Proximal Femur | 4.3 × 3.3 × 3 = 42.6 | 1 | no | 165 × 50 |
| 2 | 58 | M | FD | Proximal Tibia | 2.5 × 1.8 × 3.1 = 13.9 | 1 | no | 176 × 84 |
| 3 | 41 | M | Grade I CS | Hand | 0.5 × 0.9 × 0.4 = 0.18 | 2 | no | 173 × 75 |
| 4 | 42 | F | Enchondroma | Distal Femur | 8.6 × 1.1 × 0.8 = 7.5 | 2 | no | 154 × 51 |
| 5 | 43 | F | Grade I CS | Proximal Tibia | 5.7 × 4.6 × 3.8 = 99.6 | 1 | no | 166 × 74 |
| 6 | 18 | M | NOF | Proximal Tibia | 4.4 × 2.4 × 2.8 = 29.5 | 1 | no | 183 × 62 |
| 7 | 37 | F | Enchondroma | Hand | 2.9 × 0.7 × 0.7 = 1.4 | 2 | no | 175 × 50 |
| 8 | 39 | F | Enchondroma | Proximal Humerus | 4.2 × 2.6 × 2.4 = 26.2 | 1 | no | 158 × 56 |
| 9 | 58 | F | FD | Proximal Tibia | 8.1 × 2.7 × 2.9 = 63.4 | 1 | no | 160 × 75 |
| 10 | 57 | F | UBC | Pelvis | 5.7 × 3.8 × 3.3 = 71.5 | 2 | no | 168 × 58 |
| 11 | 51 | F | UBC | Proximal Humerus | 4.2 × 1.4 × 3.1 = 18.2 | 2 | no | 165 × 66 |
| 12 | 20 | M | UBC | Proximal Humerus | 4.8 × 2.9 × 2.5 = 34.8 | 1 | no | 175 × 60 |
| 13 | 31 | F | ABC | Distal Femur | 5.1 × 3.8 × 3.2 = 62 | 2 | no | 155 × 51 |
| 14 | 23 | M | BFH | Distal Femur | 10.3 × 1.3 × 1.1 = 14.7 | 3 | yes | 176 × 78 |
| 15 | 44 | F | Grade I CS | Proximal femur | 5.3 × 1.4 × 1.3 = 9.6 | 1 | no | 156 × 55 |
| 16 | 18 | F | BFH | Distal Femur | 11.1 × 3.2 × 1.4 = 49.7 | 2 | no | 160 × 50 |
| 17 | 65 | F | Enchondroma | Proximal Tibia | 4.0 × 2.2 × 2.7 = 23.7 | 1 | no | 155 × 68 |
| 18 | 84 | M | MXFS with bone involvement | Proximal Humerus | 9.0 × 1.1 × 2.1 = 20.8 | 3 | yes | 180 × 78 |
| 19 | 18 | F | FD | Proximal Femur | 6.0 × 3.1 × 2.3 = 42.8 | 1 | no | 163 × 58 |
| 20 | 40 | M | ABC | Distal Femur | 4.4 × 4.6 × 5.5 = 111.3 | 3 | yes | 167 × 74 |
| 21 | 51 | F | Grade I CS | Proximal Humerus | 6.4 × 1.5 × 0.9 = 8.6 | 1 | no | 162 × 67 |
| 22 | 18 | M | GCT | Patella | 3.4 × 1.5 × 3.7 = 18.9 | 2 | no | 180 × 70 |
| 23 | 56 | M | GCT | Proximal Tibia | 2.7 × 3.3 × 3.1 = 27.6 | 3 | yes | 165 × 55 |
Radiological follow-up form to value autografts and allografts, proposed by Mosetto [23].
| X-Rays in 2P | Points | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Graft reabsorption | ||
| Total | −2 | |
| Partial | −1 | Poor—Consider graft removal |
| No change in graft radiodensity from post-operatory radiographs | 0 | Poor—Consider graft removal |
| Increase in graft radiodensity without integration with patient’s bone (radiolucent line still visible) | +1 | Fair—Wait and see |
| Increase in graft radiodensity with integration with patient’s bone | ||
| Partial | +2 | Good—Wait and see |
| Total | +3 | Excellent |
Report on the evaluation of the state of graft integration at the last follow up according to Van Hoff and Mosetto radiological scores [22,23].
| Van Hoff Score | Number of Patients | Mosetto Score | Number of Patients |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | −2 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 | −1 | 1 |
| 3 | 14 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 6 | +1 | 0 |
| +2 | 8 | ||
| +3 | 12 |
Figure 2Patient 19. (A) Proximal right femur Fibrous Dysplasia. Radiological evolution after curettage and SB grafting with shaped blocks after (B) 3 and (C) 6 months of follow up.
Figure 3Patient 18. Radiological control after one month from Myxofibrosarcoma excision with (A) lateral proximal humerus cortical resection and reconstruction with two SB blocks. (B) The radiograph on the right shows a line of radiolucency and a partial resorption of the lowest block due to the incomplete coverage of the graft and its isolation from the soft tissues. Abbreviations: SX and SN stand for Left.