Experimental and histological study of reparative osteogenesis in conditions of different methods of fixation during allograft alocompositive arthroplasty of long bones
The study of bone regeneration in the case of application of allocomposite endoprosthetics is an important area of research in orthopedics.
Objective: to study the regeneration processes using allocomposite endoprosthetics to replace postresection segmental defects of the femur with various fixation methods in rats.
Methods: models of various variants of fixing the allograft to the bone of the recipient have been developed and improved; a model of cementless fixation of an endoprosthesis with ceramic stem coating using an allograft has been proposed. The experiment was carried out on 45 laboratory white rat cells (age 5 months, body weight 350–400 g), which were divided into three groups of 15 each: I — transverse osteotomy of the femur with implantation of the allocomposite endoprosthesis; II — transverse osteotomy of the femur with implantation of the allocomposite endoprosthesis and autoplasty of junctional zone between bone and allograft; III — stepped osteotomy with implantation of the allocomposite endoprosthesis. The animals were sacrificed at 3, 6 and 9 months, and histological examination was performed.Results: after transverse osteotomy of the femur (group I and II) and substitution of postresection defects of the proximal part with allocomposite endoprostheses, allografts were reorganized at all terms of the study. Symptoms of inflammation are not established in any case. With the increase in the contact plane of the allograft with the recipient bone (step osteotomy, group III), the processes of reorganization and vascularization of the allograft were more pronounced. Signs of active reorganization of autografts were observed from the 3rdmonth of the experiment. Bone fusion of an autograft with a bone of the recipient is established after 9 months after operation. On the perimeter of the endoprosthesis, the newly formed bone tissue was in tight contact with the ceramic coating of the endoprosthesis.
Full Text:PDF (Українська)
Vyrva OE, Golovina YaA, Malyk RV. Allograft-prosthesis composite for surgical treatment in patients with malignant tumors of the long bones (review). Orthopaedics, Traumatology and Prosthetics. 2015;(2):120–6. doi: 10.15674/0030-598720152120-125. (in Russian)
Vyrva OE, Burlaka VV, Malyshkina SV, Nikolchenko OA. Influence of different kinds of coats for femoral head implants on the joint tissues (an experimental study). Orthopaedics, Traumatology and Prosthetics. 2012;2:20–6. doi: 10.15674/0030-59872012220-26. (in Russian)
Vyrva O, Delevsky U, Kladchenko L, Dimitrova N. Analysis of the use of bone allografts in clinical practice. Analysis of the use of bone allografts in clinical practice. Orthopaedics, Traumatology and Prosthetics. Orthopaedics, Traumatology and Prosthetics. Orthopaedics, Traumatology and Prosthetics. 2002;2:57–61. (in Russian)
Vyrva O. Bone aloplasty postrezection tumor defects. Collection of scientific works of the Institute of Oncology of the Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine «Malignant Neoplasms». Kyiv. 2003;7:3. (in Ukrainian)
Kirkpatrick CJ, Krump-Konvalinkova V, Unger RE, Bittinger F, Otto M, Peters K. Tissue response and biomaterial integration: the efficacy of in vitro methods. Biomol Eng. 2002;19(2–6):211–7. doi: 10.1016/S1389-0344(02)00019-9.
Pearce AI, Richards RG, Milz S, Schneider E, Pearce SG Animal models for implant biomaterial research in bone: a review. Eur Cells Mater. 2007;13:1–10. doi: 10.22203/eCM.v013a01.
Pluhar GE, Manley PA, Heiner JP, Vanderby R Jr, Markel MD Gluteal muscle attachment during proximal femoral reconstruction in a canine model. J Orthop Res. 2007;25(2):208–20. doi: 10.1002/jor.20283.
Min L, Peng J, Duan H, Zhang W, Zhou Y, Tu C. Uncemented allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction of the proximal femur. Indian J Orthop. 2014;48(3):289–95. doi: 10.4103/0019-5413.132521.
Van de Sande MAJ, Sander Dijkstra PD, Taminiau AHM. Proximal humerus reconstruction after tumour resection: biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction. Int Orthop. 2011;35;1375–80. doi: 10.1007/s00264-010-1152-z.
McGoveran BM, Davis AM, Gross AE, Bell RS. Evaluation of the allograft-prosthesis composite technique for proximal femoral reconstruction after resection of a primary bone tumour. Can J Surg. 1999;42(1):37–45.
Moon BS, Gilbert NF, Cannon CP, Lin PP, Lewis VO. Distal femur allograft prosthetic composite reconstruction for short proximal femur segments following tumor resection. Advances in Orthopaedics. 2013;2013:397456. doi: 10.1155/2013/397456.
Donati D, Colangeli M, Colangeli S, Di Bella C, Mercuri M. Allograft-prosthetic composite in the proximal tibia after bone tumor resection. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(2):459–65. doi: 10.1007/s11999-007-0055-9.
Korzh N, Vyrva O, Vorontsov P, Hmyzov S, Serbin M, Timchenko D, Kuryata O, Maksimenko O. Method of manufacturing biomaterial from bone tissue. Patent 108813 С2 UA IPK А61К 35/32, A61F 2/28, A61P 19/00, A01N 1/00, A61L 27/00. No. a2014 03313; 25.11.2014; 10.06.2015, Bull No. 11.
European Convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. Strasbourg, March 18, 1986.
On the Protection of Animals from Cruel Treatment: Law of Ukraine No. 3447-IV dated February 21, 2006. Available from: http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=3447-15.
Copyright (c) 2017 Oleg Vyrva, Yanina Golovina, Roman Malyk, Zinayda Danishchuk, Olga Nikolchenko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.