X-ray examination of bone density in allograft-prosthesis composite (іn vivo experiment)

Authors

  • Oleg Vyrva
  • Yanina Golovina
  • Roman Malyk
  • Mykhaylo Karpinsky
  • Olena Karpinska

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-59872020418-24

Keywords:

Bone allograft, surgical treatment methods of bone malignant tumors, allograft-prosthesis composite, osteotomy

Abstract

Objective. To determine the most effective method of segmental bone allograft fixation during allograft — prosthesis composite based on searching the x-ray density of bone tissue at experimental animals. Methods. The work was performed on 28 laboratory white male rats (age 5 months, weight 350–400 g), which were divided into 2 groups, 14 animals in each group. All animals underwent allograft-prosthesis composite hip replacement: after transverse osteotomy of the femur in the 1st group of animals, after step cut osteotomy in the 2nd group. Animals were withdrawn from the experiment after 3 and 6 months after operation. The optical bone regenerate density in the contact of allograft and the recipient’s bone areas and the cortical layer of the recipient’s bone below the distal end of endoprosthesis were measured on Х-ray images. Results. Optical bone regenerate density after 3 and 6 months after operation had significant difference between recipient’s bone in both groups (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference (р = 0.373) of recipient’s bone density depending on using different osteotomy types on the cutoff date of the study (6 months). But bone regenerate got more density after step-cut osteotomy ((216 ± 26) units) which was significantly (p = 0.001) compare to transverse osteotomy ((161 ± 19) units). Conclusions. The using of long bone allograft-prosthesis composite with implementation a step cut osteotomy contributes to the most rapid increase in bone regenerate density than transverse osteotomy. This is due to the achievement of better stability during fixation of the bone allograft and the bone of the recipient due to the step cut osteotomy, which contributes to fast regenerative process.

Author Biographies

Oleg Vyrva

Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv

MD, Prof. in Traumatology and Orthopаedics

Yanina Golovina

Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv

 PhD in Traumatology and

Roman Malyk

Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv

PhD in Traumatology and Orthopaedics

Mykhaylo Karpinsky

Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv

 

Olena Karpinska

Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv

 

References

Ruggieri, P., Bosco, G., Pala, E., Errani, C., & Mercuri, M. (2010). Local recurrence, survival and function after total femur resection and Megaprosthetic reconstruction for bone sarcomas. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 468(11), 2860-2866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1476-4

Mankin, H. J., Hornicek, F. J., & Raskin, K. A. (2005). Infection in massive bone allografts. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, (432), 210-216. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000150371.77314.52

McGoveran, B. M., Davis, A. M., Gross, A. E., & R. S. Bell. (1999). Evaluation of the allograft-prosthesis composite technique for proximal femoral reconstruction after resection of a primary bone tumour. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 42(1), 37-45

Hornicek, F. J., Gebhardt, M. C., Tomford, W. W., Sorger, J. I., Zavatta, M., Menzner, J. P., & Mankin, H. J. (2001). Factors affecting Nonunion of the allograft-host Junction. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 382, 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200101000-00014

Vyrva, O. E., Golovina, Ya. A., Karpinsky, M. Yu., Yaresko, A. V., & Malyk, R.V. (2020). The study of the stress-strain state in the “implant-bone” system on the model of the allocomposite endoprosthesis of the proximal femur. Trauma, 21(1), 46-56. https://doi.org/10.22141/1608-1706.1.21.2020.197797. [in Ukrainian]

Vyrva, O., Golovina, Ya., Karpinska, O., & Karpinsky, M. (2020). Biomechanical experimental substantiation of the fixation technique of bone allograft and recipient’s bone. Orthopaedics, traumatology and prosthetics, 1, 40-45. https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-59872020140-45. [in Ukrainian]

European convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes: Strasbourg, 18 March 1986.

On the protection of animals from cruel treatment: the Law of Ukraine No. 3447-IV from 21.02.2006. Retrived from https://animalprotect.org/system/data/editor/File/library64.pdf.

Vyrva, O. E., Golovina, Ya. O., Mayk, R. V., Ashukina, N. O., & Nikolchenko, O. A. (2019). Method of modeling method of fixing implanted allocomposite endoprosthesis of proximal femur. Ukrainе. Patent 137301. [in Ukrainian]

Golka, G. G., Belostotsky, A. I., Karpinsky, M. Yu., & Karpinskaya, E. D. (2011). Investigation of bone density in the nonunion zone by the X-ray method. Modern research in orthopedics and traumatology (the first scientific readings dedicated to the memory of Academician O. O. Korzh), 71-72. [in Russian]

Timoshenko, O. P., Karpinsky, M. Yu., & Veretsun, A. G. (2001). Research of diagnostic capabilities of the X-rays software package. Medicine and ..., 1, 62-64. [in Russian]

Nasledov, A. (2011). SPSS 19 Heritage: Professional Statistical Data Analysis. SnPb: Piter. [in Russian]

Capanna, R., Donati, D., Masetti, C., Manfrini, M., Panozzo, A., Cadossi, R., & Campanacci, M. (1994). Effect of electromagnetic fields on patients undergoing massive bone graft following bone tumor resection. A double blind study. Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 306, 213–221

Rogers, B. A., Sternheim, A., Backstein, D., Safir, O., & Gross, A. E. (2011). Proximal femoral allograft for major segmental femoral bone loss: A systematic literature review. Advances in Orthopedics, 2011, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.4061/2011/257572

Blunn, G. W., Briggs, T. W., Cannon, S. R., Walker, P. S., Unwin, P. S., Culligan, S., & Cobb, J. P. (2000). Cementless fixation for primary segmental bone tumor Endoprostheses. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 372, 223-230. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200003000-00024

Safir, O., Kellett, C. F., Flint, M., Backstein, D., & Gross, A. E. (2008). Revision of the deficient proximal femur with a proximal femoral allograft. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 467(1), 206-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0573-0

Voronkevich, I. A. (2013). Features of the structure of the proximal epiphysis of the tibia and the effectiveness of fixation of fragments of the impression zone of comminuted fractures of the tibial condyles (experimental study). Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia, 3(69), 57-63. [in Russian]

Issue

Section

ORIGINAL ARTICLES