Safety and Effectiveness of Using Double-Ended Allograft in the Repair of Large Defects of Bi-Epiphyseal Bones in Experiment

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The repair of large defects in the long bones remains one of the most pressing problems in traumatology and orthopedics.

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness and technological safety of the repair of large defects of the long bi-epiphyseal bones including the use of double-ended bone allografts to demarcate the defect cavity from the surrounding tissues and fixation of bone fragments using an external fixation device.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experiments were conducted on 14 adult nonpedigree male and female dogs aged 1–2 years. The double-ended allograft was used to demarcate the formed defect of the tibial bones at 1.5 diameter length of the shinbone. The bone fragments were fixed with Ilizarov apparatus adapted for experiments on dogs. The maximal follow-up period was 2 years after the surgery. In the dynamics of the experiment, life-time observations, X-ray examination, and laboratory control were conducted. After euthanasia, the implantation zone was examined histologically.

RESULTS: The visual signs of the restructure of the transplants were identified starting from day 35 after surgery. The bone regenerates in the defect zone completely formed within 3 months after the surgery. This permitted the removal of the external fixation apparatus in 3 months after the surgery. The restructuring of the newly formed part of the bone continued for 2 years after the operation. No significant changes in the laboratory parameters in the dynamics of the experiment were observed. No changes could be evaluated as negative phenomena. No serious unwanted events were recorded either.

CONCLUSION: The proposed technique for the repair of large defects of long bi-epiphyseal bones demonstrated safety and sufficient effectiveness in the speed of regeneration of the defect and quality of the bones formed.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Alexandr N. D’yachkov

Ilizarov’ National Medical Research Centre for Traumatology and Orthopedics of the Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: naucaalex@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4905-3950
SPIN-code: 4869-0384

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

Russian Federation, Kurgan

Nikolay S. Migalkin

Ilizarov’ National Medical Research Centre for Traumatology and Orthopedics of the Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: mignik45@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7502-5654
Russian Federation, Kurgan

Maksim V. Stogov

Ilizarov’ National Medical Research Centre for Traumatology and Orthopedics of the Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: stogo_off@list.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8516-8571
SPIN-code: 9345-8300

Dr. Sci. (Biol.), Associate Professor

Russian Federation, Kurgan

Yuryi P. Soldatov

Ilizarov’ National Medical Research Centre for Traumatology and Orthopedics of the Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: soldatov-up@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2499-3257
SPIN-code: 9579-0144

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

Russian Federation, Kurgan

Olga V. Dyuryagina

Ilizarov’ National Medical Research Centre for Traumatology and Orthopedics of the Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: diuriagina@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9974-2204
SPIN-code: 8301-1475

Cand. Sci. (Vet.)

Russian Federation, Kurgan

Natalia V. Tushina

Ilizarov’ National Medical Research Centre for Traumatology and Orthopedics of the Ministry of Health of Russia

Author for correspondence.
Email: ntushina76@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1322-608X
SPIN-code: 7554-9130

Cand. Sci. (Biol.)

Russian Federation, Kurgan

References

  1. Shlykov IL, Rybin AV, Gorbunova ZI. State and prospects of developing the traumatologic-and-orthopedic service in the Ural Federal Region. Genij Ortopedii. 2012;(4):10–4. (In Russ).
  2. Lin H, Wang X, Huang M, et al. Research hotspots and trends of bone defects based on Web of Science: a bibliometric analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2020;15(1):463–78. doi: 110.1186/s13018-020-01973-3
  3. Mironov SP. State of Orthopaedic-Traumatologic Service in Russian Federation and Perspectives for Introduction of Innovative Technologies in Traumatology and Orthopaedics. N.N. Priorov Journal of Traumatology and Orthopedics. 2010;(4):10–3. (In Russ).
  4. Gage J, Liporace A, Egol A, et al. Management of Bone Defects in Orthopedic Trauma. Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013). 2018;76(1):4–8.
  5. Giannoudis PV, Harwood PJ, Tosounidis T, et al. Restoration of long bone defects treated with the induced membrane technique: protocol and outcomes. Injury. 2016;47(Suppl 6):S53–61. doi: 10.1016/S0020-1383(16)30840-3
  6. Poh PS, Lingner T, Kalkhof S, et al. Enabling technologies towards personalization of scaffolds for large bone defect regeneration. Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 2022;74:263–70. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2021.12.002
  7. Reznik LB, Erofeev SA, Stasenko IV, et al. Morphological assessment of osteointegration of various implants for management of long bone defects (experimental study). Genij Ortopedii. 2019;25(3):318–23. (In Russ). doi: 10.18019/1028-4427-2019-25-3-318-323
  8. Liu P, Bao T, Sun L, et al. In situ mineralized PLGA/zwitterionic hydrogel composite scaffold enables high-efficiency rhBMP-2 release for critical–sized bone healing. Biomaterials Science. 2022;10(3):781–93. doi: 10.1039/d1bm01521d
  9. Dheenadhayalan J, Devendra A, Velmurugesan P, et al. Reconstruction of massive segmental distal femoral metaphyseal bone defects after open injury: a study of 20 patients managed with intercalary gamma-irradiated structural allografts and autologous cancellous grafts. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume. 2022;104(2):172–80. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.21.00065
  10. Kryukov EV, Brizhan' LK, Khominets VV, et al. Clinical use of scaffold-technology to manage extensive bone defects. Genij Ortopedii. 2019;25(1):49–51. (In Russ). doi: 10.18019/1028-4427-2019-25-1-49-57
  11. Zhi W, Wang X, Sun D, et al. Optimal regenerative repair of large segmental bone defect in a goat model with osteoinductive calcium phosphate bioceramic implants. Bioactive Materials. 2021;11:240–53. doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.09.024
  12. Ho–Shui–Ling A, Bolander J, Rustom LE, et al. Bone regeneration strategies: engineered scaffolds, bioactive molecules and stem cells current stage and future perspectives. Biomaterials. 2018;180:143–62. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.07.017
  13. Li C, Lv H, Du Y, et al. Biologically modified implantation as therapeutic bioabsorbable materials for bone defect repair. Regenerative Therapy. 2021;19:19–23. doi: 10.1016/j.reth.2021.12.004
  14. De Girolamo L, Ragni E, Cucchiarini M, et al. Cells, soluble factors and matrix harmonically play the concert of allograft integration. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2019;27(6):1717–25. doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5182-1
  15. Ilizarov GA, Shreyner AA, Imerlishvili IA. Kortikal’nyy defekt trubchatoy kosti kak model’ dlya izucheniya osteogennykh svoystv kostnogo mozga diafiza. Genij Ortopedii. 1995;(1):18–20. (In Russ).
  16. Chen G, Lv Y. Matrix elasticity-modified scaffold loaded with SDF-1alpha improves the in situ regeneration of segmental bone defect in rabbit radius. Scientific Reports. 2017;7(1):1672. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-01938-3
  17. Hao J, Bai B, Ci Z, et al. Large-sized bone defect repair by combining a decalcified bone matrix framework and bone regeneration units based on photo-crosslinkable osteogenic microgels. Bioactive Materials. 2021;14:97–109. doi: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.12.013
  18. Seng DWR, Premchand RAX. Application of Masquelet technique across bone regions — A case series. Trauma Case Reports. 2021;37:100591. doi: 10.1016/j.tcr.2021.100591
  19. Migliorini F, La Padula G, Torsiello E, et al. Strategies for large bone defect reconstruction after trauma, infections or tumour excision: a comprehensive review of the literature. European Journal of Medical Research. 2021;26(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s40001-021-00593-9

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2. Fig. 1. X-ray of the middle third of dogs’ shins after surgery (days).

Download (96KB)
3. Fig. 2. Histotopograms: 28th day after surgery (а); 60th day (b); 90th day (c); 180th day (d); 270th day (e); 1 year after surgery (f); 2 years after surgery (g, h).

Download (140KB)

Copyright (c) 2022 ООО "Эко-Вектор"


Media Registry Entry of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Communications (Roskomnadzor) PI No. FS77-76803 dated September 24, 2019.



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies