Biomechanic comparative of cancellous autograft with xenograft originating from bovine enriched with autogen bone marrow


Abstract views: 53 / PDF downloads: 100

Authors

  • Orhan Büyükbebeci Gaziantep Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Anabilim Dalı, Gaziantep
  • Kamil Barlas Gaziantep Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Anabilim Dalı, Gaziantep
  • Günhan Karakurum Gaziantep Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Anabilim Dalı, Gaziantep
  • Akif Güleç Gaziantep Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Anabilim Dalı, Gaziantep

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58600/eurjther.2000-11-1-2-917-arch

Keywords:

bone grafts, xenografts

Abstract

Autologous cancellous bone grafts contain osteoconductive, osteoinductive and osteogenic elements. No alternate graft material contains alt of these three components for the regeneration of the bone. However, autogenous grafting is associated with several complications, bone graft substitutes have been used in a wide range of orthopaedic pathologic condition. Xenografts (heterografts) are one of these alternatives. Although there are some histological and radiological studies conceming bone grafts of bovine origin, we could not find any comparative biomechanical counterparts. in this study we aim to compare cancellous autograft with xenograft originating from bovine enriched with autogen bone marrow regarding the biomechanical endurance within the duration of the fracture union. Therefore, radiological and histological studies will be reviewed in addition to biomechanical study. Eighteen dogs with a mean age of 14 months (range 12 to, 16 months) were included in this study). All of the operations were performed under general anesthesia and Unilab Surgibone® grafts wem us.ed for xenografts. Autogen grafts were used from iliac crests and standart fracture were tried to be formed on fibulas. After being convinced of the fracture union radiologically, the segments which were ,derived from fibulas were tested by using a biomechanic test Monsanto Tensorneter which has ±200g. sensitivity was used for mechanical tests. A meaningful difference were not able to found after statistical comparison of mechanical strength of the new bones which were formed by the two bone grafts (p>0.05,). lf you carry out the results of this, study to the cıinical practice, it rıııay be assumed that weight bearing can be permit ted at the same time for both groups.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Buckwalter JA, Einhorn TA, Bolander ME, Cruess RL. Healing of the Musculoskeletal Tissues. In: Rockwood CA, Green DP, Bucholz RW, Heckman JD (eds). Fractures in Adults (4.ed) Philadelphia-New York, Lippincott-Raven 1996; 261-304.

Lane JM, Bostrom MPG. Bone grafting and new composite biosynthetic graft materials. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 1998; 47:525- 534.

Gazdag AR, Lane JM, Glaser D, Forster RA. Alternatives to autogenous bone graft; Efficacy and indications. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 1995: 3 (1):1-8.

Aronson J, Cornell CN. Bone healing and grafting. In Callaghan JJ , Hamer CD, Kova! KJ, Rosier RN (Eds): Orthopaedic Knowledge Update 6, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 1999: pp 25-37.

Cornell C, Lane JM, Chapman M. Multicenter trial of collagraft as bone graft substitute. J Orthop Trauma 1991; 5: 1-8.

Salama R, Burwell RD, Dickson IR. Recombined grafts of bone and marrow; The benefical effect upon osteogenesis of the impregnating xenograft bone with autologous red marrow. J Bone Joint Surg 1973; 55- B:402-417.

Salama R, Weissman SL. The clinical use of combined xenografts of bone and autologous red marrow. A preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg 1978;60-B: 111-115.

Plenk H, Holmann K, Wilfort K. Experimental bridging of osseous defects in rats by the irnplantation of Kiel bone containing fresh autologous marrow. J Bone Joint Surg 1972; 54-B: 735-743.

McMurray GN. The evaluation of Kiel bone in spinal fusions. J Bone Joint Surg 1982; 64-B: 101- 104.

Vich JMO. Histologic behavior of implants of bovine bone origin. Unilab Surgibone® kataloğu, Department of Experirnental Surgery of the Clinica Puerta de Hierro, Madrid, Spain.

Tahari ZE, Gueramy M. Experience with calf bone in cervical interbody fusion. J Neurosurg 1972; 36: 67-71.

Ramani PS, Kalbag RM, Sengupta RP. Cervical interbody fusion with Kiel bone. Br J Surg 1975; 62: 147-150.

Turner CH, Burr DB. Basic biomechanical measurements ofbone. Bone 1993; 14: 595-608.

Crenshaw AH Jr. Surgical techniques and approaches. in: Canale ST ( ed). Campell's Operative Orthopaedics, (9 .ed). St. Louis, Mosby -Y ear Book, ine., 1998: pp 40-47.

Younger EM, Chapman MW. Morbidity at bone graft donor sites. J Orthop Trauma 1989; 3: 192-195.

Reid RL. Hemia through an iliac bone graft donor site. J Bone Joint Surg 1968; 50-A: 757.

Coventry MB, Tapper MB. Pelvic instability- a consequence of removing iliac bone for grafting. J Bone Joint Surg 1972; 54-A: 83.

Salama R, Gazit E. The antigenicity of kiel bone in the human host. J Bone Joint Surg 1978; 60-B: 262-265.

Elves MW, Salama R. A study of the development of cytotoxic antibodies produced in recipients of xenografts (heterografts) of iliac bone. J Bone Joint Surg 1974; 56-B: 331-339.

Downloads

Published

2000-01-01

How to Cite

Büyükbebeci, O., Barlas, K., Karakurum, G., & Güleç, A. (2000). Biomechanic comparative of cancellous autograft with xenograft originating from bovine enriched with autogen bone marrow. European Journal of Therapeutics, 11(1, 2), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.58600/eurjther.2000-11-1-2-917-arch

Issue

Section

Original Articles