Cargando…

Clinical trial and in-vitro study comparing the efficacy of treating bony lesions with allografts versus synthetic or highly-processed xenogeneic bone grafts

BACKGROUND: Our study aim was to compare allogeneic cancellous bone (ACB) and synthetic or highly-processed xenogeneic bone substitutes (SBS) in the treatment of skeletal defects in orthopedic surgery. METHODS: 232 patients treated for bony lesions with ACB (n = 116) or SBS (n = 116) within a 10-yea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kubosch, Eva Johanna, Bernstein, Anke, Wolf, Laura, Fretwurst, Tobias, Nelson, Katja, Schmal, Hagen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4752776/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26873750
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-0930-1
_version_ 1782415788845563904
author Kubosch, Eva Johanna
Bernstein, Anke
Wolf, Laura
Fretwurst, Tobias
Nelson, Katja
Schmal, Hagen
author_facet Kubosch, Eva Johanna
Bernstein, Anke
Wolf, Laura
Fretwurst, Tobias
Nelson, Katja
Schmal, Hagen
author_sort Kubosch, Eva Johanna
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Our study aim was to compare allogeneic cancellous bone (ACB) and synthetic or highly-processed xenogeneic bone substitutes (SBS) in the treatment of skeletal defects in orthopedic surgery. METHODS: 232 patients treated for bony lesions with ACB (n = 116) or SBS (n = 116) within a 10-year time period were included in this case–control study. Furthermore, both materials were seeded with human osteoblasts (hOB, n = 10) and analyzed by histology, for viability (AlamarBlue®) and protein expression activity (Luminex®). RESULTS: The complication rate was 14.2 %, proportion of defects without bony healing 3.6 %; neither outcome parameter differed comparing the intervention groups. Failed consolidation correlated with an increase in complications (p < 0.03). The rate of complications was further highly significant in association with the location of use (p < 0.001), but did not depend on age, ASA risk classification, BMI, smoking behavior or type of insurance. However, those factors did significantly influence the bony healing rate (p < 0.02). Complication and consolidation rates were independent of gender and the filling substances employed within the different locations. Histological examination revealed similar bone structures, whereas cell remnants were apparent only in the allografts. Both materials were biocompatible in-vitro, and seeded with human osteoblasts. The cells remained vital over the 3-week culture period and produced microscopically typical bone matrix. We observed initially increased expression of osteocalcin, osteopontin, and osteoprotegerin as well as leptin and adiponectin secretion declining after 1 week, especially in the ACB group. CONCLUSION: Although both investigated materials appeared to be similarly suitable for the treatment of skeletal lesions in-vivo and in-vitro, outcome was decisively influenced by other factors such as the site of use or epidemiological parameters.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4752776
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47527762016-02-14 Clinical trial and in-vitro study comparing the efficacy of treating bony lesions with allografts versus synthetic or highly-processed xenogeneic bone grafts Kubosch, Eva Johanna Bernstein, Anke Wolf, Laura Fretwurst, Tobias Nelson, Katja Schmal, Hagen BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Our study aim was to compare allogeneic cancellous bone (ACB) and synthetic or highly-processed xenogeneic bone substitutes (SBS) in the treatment of skeletal defects in orthopedic surgery. METHODS: 232 patients treated for bony lesions with ACB (n = 116) or SBS (n = 116) within a 10-year time period were included in this case–control study. Furthermore, both materials were seeded with human osteoblasts (hOB, n = 10) and analyzed by histology, for viability (AlamarBlue®) and protein expression activity (Luminex®). RESULTS: The complication rate was 14.2 %, proportion of defects without bony healing 3.6 %; neither outcome parameter differed comparing the intervention groups. Failed consolidation correlated with an increase in complications (p < 0.03). The rate of complications was further highly significant in association with the location of use (p < 0.001), but did not depend on age, ASA risk classification, BMI, smoking behavior or type of insurance. However, those factors did significantly influence the bony healing rate (p < 0.02). Complication and consolidation rates were independent of gender and the filling substances employed within the different locations. Histological examination revealed similar bone structures, whereas cell remnants were apparent only in the allografts. Both materials were biocompatible in-vitro, and seeded with human osteoblasts. The cells remained vital over the 3-week culture period and produced microscopically typical bone matrix. We observed initially increased expression of osteocalcin, osteopontin, and osteoprotegerin as well as leptin and adiponectin secretion declining after 1 week, especially in the ACB group. CONCLUSION: Although both investigated materials appeared to be similarly suitable for the treatment of skeletal lesions in-vivo and in-vitro, outcome was decisively influenced by other factors such as the site of use or epidemiological parameters. BioMed Central 2016-02-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4752776/ /pubmed/26873750 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-0930-1 Text en © Kubosch et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kubosch, Eva Johanna
Bernstein, Anke
Wolf, Laura
Fretwurst, Tobias
Nelson, Katja
Schmal, Hagen
Clinical trial and in-vitro study comparing the efficacy of treating bony lesions with allografts versus synthetic or highly-processed xenogeneic bone grafts
title Clinical trial and in-vitro study comparing the efficacy of treating bony lesions with allografts versus synthetic or highly-processed xenogeneic bone grafts
title_full Clinical trial and in-vitro study comparing the efficacy of treating bony lesions with allografts versus synthetic or highly-processed xenogeneic bone grafts
title_fullStr Clinical trial and in-vitro study comparing the efficacy of treating bony lesions with allografts versus synthetic or highly-processed xenogeneic bone grafts
title_full_unstemmed Clinical trial and in-vitro study comparing the efficacy of treating bony lesions with allografts versus synthetic or highly-processed xenogeneic bone grafts
title_short Clinical trial and in-vitro study comparing the efficacy of treating bony lesions with allografts versus synthetic or highly-processed xenogeneic bone grafts
title_sort clinical trial and in-vitro study comparing the efficacy of treating bony lesions with allografts versus synthetic or highly-processed xenogeneic bone grafts
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4752776/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26873750
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-0930-1
work_keys_str_mv AT kuboschevajohanna clinicaltrialandinvitrostudycomparingtheefficacyoftreatingbonylesionswithallograftsversussyntheticorhighlyprocessedxenogeneicbonegrafts
AT bernsteinanke clinicaltrialandinvitrostudycomparingtheefficacyoftreatingbonylesionswithallograftsversussyntheticorhighlyprocessedxenogeneicbonegrafts
AT wolflaura clinicaltrialandinvitrostudycomparingtheefficacyoftreatingbonylesionswithallograftsversussyntheticorhighlyprocessedxenogeneicbonegrafts
AT fretwursttobias clinicaltrialandinvitrostudycomparingtheefficacyoftreatingbonylesionswithallograftsversussyntheticorhighlyprocessedxenogeneicbonegrafts
AT nelsonkatja clinicaltrialandinvitrostudycomparingtheefficacyoftreatingbonylesionswithallograftsversussyntheticorhighlyprocessedxenogeneicbonegrafts
AT schmalhagen clinicaltrialandinvitrostudycomparingtheefficacyoftreatingbonylesionswithallograftsversussyntheticorhighlyprocessedxenogeneicbonegrafts