| Literature DB >> 35282388 |
Hening Sun1, Charles Godbout1, Kalter Hali1, Jovana Momic1, Emil H Schemitsch2, Aaron Nauth1,3.
Abstract
Objectives: The induced membrane technique (IMT) is a 2-stage surgical approach that has become increasingly popular to manage bone defects. Preclinical investigations have been conducted to better understand and define several aspects of this technique. This review summarizes the literature regarding the IMT performed in animal models and identifies potential future directions. Data Sources: Biosis Citation Index, Ovid Embase, and Ovid MEDLINE databases were searched from inception up to June 23, 2021 for articles related to the IMT. Study Selection: Animal studies involving the use of the IMT for segmental defects in long bones were selected. Only full-length original research articles published in English or French were included. Data Extraction: Two authors extracted the data from the selected studies and a third author verified the accuracy of the information. Data Synthesis: Information concerning the animal model, the surgical procedures, and the outcome measures were recorded for each study and compiled. Conclusions: Forty-seven studies were included in this review. Twenty-nine studies (62%) performed both stages of the technique, but only 8 (17%) reported on radiographic union rates explicitly and 5 (11%) included biomechanical testing. A large proportion of the preclinical literature on the IMT has failed to report on radiographic union as an outcome. While studies reporting membrane properties are valuable, they may not provide information that translates into clinical practice or further clinical research if the ultimate outcome of bony healing is not considered. Future animal studies of the IMT should consider this in their study design.Entities:
Keywords: Masquelet technique; bone defect; bone regeneration; induced membrane technique; nonunion
Year: 2022 PMID: 35282388 PMCID: PMC8900461 DOI: 10.1097/OI9.0000000000000176
Source DB: PubMed Journal: OTA Int ISSN: 2574-2167
Figure 1Flow diagram illustrating the process of study screening and selection. IMT = induced membrane technique.
Summary of study characteristics.
| Species | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| Rat 28 (59.6%) | Rabbit 11 (23.4%) | Sheep 5 (10.6%) | Chicken 1 (2.1%) | Goat 1 (2.1%) | Mouse 1 (2.1%) | All species 47 (100%) | |
| Bone | |||||||
| Femur | 26 (92.9%) | 2 (18.2%) | 1 (20.0%) | 1 (100%) | 30 (63.8%) | ||
| Metatarsus | 3 (60.0%) | 3 (6.4%) | |||||
| Radius | 7 (63.6%) | 1 (100%) | 8 (17.0%) | ||||
| Tibia | 2 (7.1%) | 1 (20.0%) | 1 (100%) | 4 (8.5%) | |||
| Ulna | 2 (18.2%) | 2 (4.3%) | |||||
| Stages | |||||||
| Stage 1 only | 11 (39.3%) | 5 (45.5%) | 1 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 18 (38.3%) | ||
| Stage 1 + 2 | 17 (60.7%) | 6 (54.5%) | 5 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 29 (61.7%) | ||
| Primary outcome∗ | |||||||
| Membrane analysis | 11 (39.3%) | 5 (45.5%) | 1 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 18 (38.3%) | ||
| Bone healing | 7 (25.0%) | 4 (36.4%) | 3 (60.0%) | 1 (100%) | 15 (31.9%) | ||
| Both | 9 (32.1%) | 2 (18.2%) | 2 (40.0%) | 13 (27.7%) | |||
| Stage 2 analyses | |||||||
| Radiographic assessment after second stage | 16 (57.1%) | 5 (45.5%) | 5 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 27 (57.4%) | ||
| Reported radiographic union rate† | 5 (17.9%) | 1 (9.1%) | 2 (40.0%) | 8 (17.0%) | |||
| Biomechanical testing | 4 (14.3%) | 1 (9.1%)‡ | 5 (10.6%) | ||||
One study in rats did not perform membrane analysis or bone healing assessment.[
To be considered as reported, radiographic union rates must be provided explicitly for every group included in the study.
Biomechanical testing was performed before the second stage in one additional study.[