Acetabular bone reconstruction in revision arthroplasty: a comparison of freeze-dried, irradiated and chemically-treated allograft vitalised with autologous marrow versus frozen non-irradiated allograft.

BG Trauma Centre, University of Tuebingen, Schnarrenbergstrasse 95, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany.
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume (Impact Factor: 2.8). 10/2008; 90(9):1164-71. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.90B9.20425
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Deficiencies of acetabular bone stock at revision hip replacement were reconstructed with two different types of allograft using impaction bone grafting and a Burch-Schneider reinforcement ring. We compared a standard frozen non-irradiated bone bank allograft (group A) with a freeze-dried irradiated bone allograft, vitalised with autologous marrow (group B). We studied 78 patients (79 hips), of whom 87% (69 hips) had type III acetabular defects according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons classification at a mean of 31.4 months (14 to 51) after surgery. At the latest follow-up, the mean Harris hip score was 69.9 points (13.5 to 97.1) in group A and 71.0 points (11.5 to 96.5) in group B. Each hip showed evidence of trabeculation and incorporation of the allograft with no acetabular loosening. These results suggest that the use of an acetabular reinforcement ring and a living composite of sterile allograft and autologous marrow appears to be a method of reconstructing acetabular deficiencies which gives comparable results to current forms of treatment.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bone fracture healing impairment related to mechanical problems has been largely corrected by advances in fracture management. Better protocols, more strict controls of time and function, hardware and surgical technique evolution have contributed to better prognosis, even in complex fractures. However, atrophic nonunion persists in clinical cases where, for different reasons, the osteogenic capability is impaired. When this is the case, a better understanding of basic mechanisms under bone repair and augmentation techniques may put in perspective the current possibilities and future opportunities. Among those, cell therapy particularly aims to correct this insufficient osteogenesis. However, the launching of safe and efficacious cell therapies still requires substantial amount of research, especially clinical trials. This review will envisage the current clinical trials on bone healing augmentation based on cell therapy, with the experience provided by the REBORNE Project, and the insight from investigator-driven clinical trials on advanced therapies towards the future.
    Bone 08/2014; · 4.46 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: When natural bone repair mechanisms fail, autologous bone grafting is the current standard of care. The osteogenic cells and bone matrix in the graft provide the osteo-inductive and osteo-conductive properties required for successful bone repair. Bone marrow (BM) mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) can differentiate into osteogenic cells. MSC-based cell therapy holds promise for promoting bone repair. The amount of MSCs available from iliac-crest aspirates is too small to be clinically useful, and either concentration or culture must therefore be used to expand the MSC population. MSCs can be administered alone via percutaneous injection or implanted during open surgery with a biomaterial, usually biphasic hydroxyapatite/β-calcium-triphosphate granules. Encouraging preliminary results have been obtained in patients with delayed healing of long bone fractures or avascular necrosis of the femoral head. Bone tissue engineering involves in vitro MSC culturing on biomaterials to obtain colonisation of the biomaterial and differentiation of the cells. The biomaterial-cell construct is then implanted into the zone to be treated. Few published data are available on bone tissue engineering. Much work remains to be done before determining whether this method is suitable for the routine filling of bone tissue defects. Increasing cell survival and promoting implant vascularisation are major challenges. Improved expertise with culturing techniques, together with the incorporation of regulatory requirements, will open the way to high-quality clinical trials investigating the usefulness of cell therapy as a method for achieving bone repair. Cell therapy avoids the drawbacks of autologous bone grafting, preserving the bone stock and diminishing treatment invasiveness.
    Orthopaedics & Traumatology Surgery & Research 01/2014; · 1.17 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The procedure of bone allografting associated with a reinforcement device is widely used for acetabulum revision. However in absence of biologic fixation of the allograft, failure of the reconstruction may occur. We made the hypothesis that it would be possible to load these grafts with bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) to rescue the osteogenic capacity of an allogenic dead bone and therefore enhance incorporation of allografts with the host bone and decrease the number of failures related to the allograft. We identified 60 patients who had undergone acetabular component revision for aseptic failure of cemented implants associated with massive periacetabular osteolysis and Paprosky type 3A or 3B classification (without pelvic discontinuity) between 1996 and 2001. The study group of 30 patients received MSCs in the allograft and at the host graft junction. The average total number of MSCs received by each patient was 195,000 cells (range 86,000-254,000 cells). The control group of 30 patients had no MSCs in the allograft. Patients were matched for the size of periacetabular osteolysis (Paprosky type 3A or 3B). We compared the evolution of the allografts and evaluated cup migration and revision of the hips as end points at a minimum of 12 years or until failure. Better radiographic graft union rates and less allograft resorption were observed with allografts loaded with stem cells. Allograft resorption was significantly decreased in the group with allograft loaded with MSCs (1.2 cm(2) -range 0-2.3 cm(2)-of resorption on radiographs in the group with MSCs; versus 6 cm(2), range 2.1-8.5 cm(2) in the group without MSCs). The rate of mechanical failure was highest (p = 0.01) among the 30 patients with allograft without stem cells (9/30; 30 %) compared with no failures for patients with allograft loaded with stem cells. Revision of the cup was necessary in nine patients in the control group. No revision was performed in the 30 patients of the study group with MSCs. For acetabular defect reconstruction, loading the allograft with MSCs has resulted in a lower rate of failure as compared with allograft without MSCs.
    International Orthopaedics 02/2014; · 2.02 Impact Factor