Cargando…
A biomechanical comparison between cement packing combined with extra fixation and three-dimensional printed strut-type prosthetic reconstruction for giant cell tumor of bone in distal femur
BACKGROUND: The most common reconstruction method for bone defects caused by giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) is cement packing combined with subchondral bone grafting and extra fixation. However, this method has several limitations involving bone cement and bone graft, which may lead to poor prognos...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8905788/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35264178 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03039-y |
_version_ | 1784665266845646848 |
---|---|
author | Hu, Xin Lu, Minxun Zhang, Yuqi Wang, Yitian Min, Li Tu, Chongqi |
author_facet | Hu, Xin Lu, Minxun Zhang, Yuqi Wang, Yitian Min, Li Tu, Chongqi |
author_sort | Hu, Xin |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The most common reconstruction method for bone defects caused by giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) is cement packing combined with subchondral bone grafting and extra fixation. However, this method has several limitations involving bone cement and bone graft, which may lead to poor prognosis and joint function. A titanium-based 3D-printed strut-type prosthesis, featured with excellent biocompatibility and osseointegration ability, was developed for this bone defect in our institution. The goal of this study is to comparatively analyze the biomechanical performance of reconstruction methods aimed at the identification of better operative strategy. METHODS: Four different 3D finite element models were created. Model #1: Normal femur; Model #2: Femur with tumorous cavity bone defects in the distal femur; Model #3: Cavity bone defects reconstructed by cement packing combined with subchondral bone grafting and extra fixation; Model #4: Cavity bone defects reconstructed by 3D-printed strut-type prosthesis combined with subchondral bone grafting. The femoral muscle multiple forces were applied to analyze the mechanical difference among these models by finite element analysis. RESULTS: Optimal stress and displacement distribution were observed in the normal femur. Both reconstruction methods could provide good initial stability and mechanical support. Stress distributed unevenly on the femur repaired by cement packing combined with subchondral bone grafting and extra fixation, and obvious stress concentration was found around the articular surface of this femur. However, the femur repaired by 3D-printed strut-type prosthetic reconstruction showed better performance both in displacement and stress distribution, particularly in terms of the protection of articular surface and subchondral bone. CONCLUSIONS: 3D-printed strut-type prosthesis is outstanding in precise shape matching and better osseointegration. Compared to cement packing and extra fixation, it can provide the almost same support and fixation stiffness, but better biomechanical performance and protection of subchondral bone and articular cartilage. Therefore, 3D-printed strut-type prosthetic reconstruction combined with subchondral bone grafting may be evaluated as an alternative for the treatment of GCTBs in distal femur. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8905788 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89057882022-03-18 A biomechanical comparison between cement packing combined with extra fixation and three-dimensional printed strut-type prosthetic reconstruction for giant cell tumor of bone in distal femur Hu, Xin Lu, Minxun Zhang, Yuqi Wang, Yitian Min, Li Tu, Chongqi J Orthop Surg Res Research Article BACKGROUND: The most common reconstruction method for bone defects caused by giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) is cement packing combined with subchondral bone grafting and extra fixation. However, this method has several limitations involving bone cement and bone graft, which may lead to poor prognosis and joint function. A titanium-based 3D-printed strut-type prosthesis, featured with excellent biocompatibility and osseointegration ability, was developed for this bone defect in our institution. The goal of this study is to comparatively analyze the biomechanical performance of reconstruction methods aimed at the identification of better operative strategy. METHODS: Four different 3D finite element models were created. Model #1: Normal femur; Model #2: Femur with tumorous cavity bone defects in the distal femur; Model #3: Cavity bone defects reconstructed by cement packing combined with subchondral bone grafting and extra fixation; Model #4: Cavity bone defects reconstructed by 3D-printed strut-type prosthesis combined with subchondral bone grafting. The femoral muscle multiple forces were applied to analyze the mechanical difference among these models by finite element analysis. RESULTS: Optimal stress and displacement distribution were observed in the normal femur. Both reconstruction methods could provide good initial stability and mechanical support. Stress distributed unevenly on the femur repaired by cement packing combined with subchondral bone grafting and extra fixation, and obvious stress concentration was found around the articular surface of this femur. However, the femur repaired by 3D-printed strut-type prosthetic reconstruction showed better performance both in displacement and stress distribution, particularly in terms of the protection of articular surface and subchondral bone. CONCLUSIONS: 3D-printed strut-type prosthesis is outstanding in precise shape matching and better osseointegration. Compared to cement packing and extra fixation, it can provide the almost same support and fixation stiffness, but better biomechanical performance and protection of subchondral bone and articular cartilage. Therefore, 3D-printed strut-type prosthetic reconstruction combined with subchondral bone grafting may be evaluated as an alternative for the treatment of GCTBs in distal femur. BioMed Central 2022-03-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8905788/ /pubmed/35264178 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03039-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Hu, Xin Lu, Minxun Zhang, Yuqi Wang, Yitian Min, Li Tu, Chongqi A biomechanical comparison between cement packing combined with extra fixation and three-dimensional printed strut-type prosthetic reconstruction for giant cell tumor of bone in distal femur |
title | A biomechanical comparison between cement packing combined with extra fixation and three-dimensional printed strut-type prosthetic reconstruction for giant cell tumor of bone in distal femur |
title_full | A biomechanical comparison between cement packing combined with extra fixation and three-dimensional printed strut-type prosthetic reconstruction for giant cell tumor of bone in distal femur |
title_fullStr | A biomechanical comparison between cement packing combined with extra fixation and three-dimensional printed strut-type prosthetic reconstruction for giant cell tumor of bone in distal femur |
title_full_unstemmed | A biomechanical comparison between cement packing combined with extra fixation and three-dimensional printed strut-type prosthetic reconstruction for giant cell tumor of bone in distal femur |
title_short | A biomechanical comparison between cement packing combined with extra fixation and three-dimensional printed strut-type prosthetic reconstruction for giant cell tumor of bone in distal femur |
title_sort | biomechanical comparison between cement packing combined with extra fixation and three-dimensional printed strut-type prosthetic reconstruction for giant cell tumor of bone in distal femur |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8905788/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35264178 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03039-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT huxin abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweencementpackingcombinedwithextrafixationandthreedimensionalprintedstruttypeprostheticreconstructionforgiantcelltumorofboneindistalfemur AT luminxun abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweencementpackingcombinedwithextrafixationandthreedimensionalprintedstruttypeprostheticreconstructionforgiantcelltumorofboneindistalfemur AT zhangyuqi abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweencementpackingcombinedwithextrafixationandthreedimensionalprintedstruttypeprostheticreconstructionforgiantcelltumorofboneindistalfemur AT wangyitian abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweencementpackingcombinedwithextrafixationandthreedimensionalprintedstruttypeprostheticreconstructionforgiantcelltumorofboneindistalfemur AT minli abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweencementpackingcombinedwithextrafixationandthreedimensionalprintedstruttypeprostheticreconstructionforgiantcelltumorofboneindistalfemur AT tuchongqi abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweencementpackingcombinedwithextrafixationandthreedimensionalprintedstruttypeprostheticreconstructionforgiantcelltumorofboneindistalfemur AT huxin biomechanicalcomparisonbetweencementpackingcombinedwithextrafixationandthreedimensionalprintedstruttypeprostheticreconstructionforgiantcelltumorofboneindistalfemur AT luminxun biomechanicalcomparisonbetweencementpackingcombinedwithextrafixationandthreedimensionalprintedstruttypeprostheticreconstructionforgiantcelltumorofboneindistalfemur AT zhangyuqi biomechanicalcomparisonbetweencementpackingcombinedwithextrafixationandthreedimensionalprintedstruttypeprostheticreconstructionforgiantcelltumorofboneindistalfemur AT wangyitian biomechanicalcomparisonbetweencementpackingcombinedwithextrafixationandthreedimensionalprintedstruttypeprostheticreconstructionforgiantcelltumorofboneindistalfemur AT minli biomechanicalcomparisonbetweencementpackingcombinedwithextrafixationandthreedimensionalprintedstruttypeprostheticreconstructionforgiantcelltumorofboneindistalfemur AT tuchongqi biomechanicalcomparisonbetweencementpackingcombinedwithextrafixationandthreedimensionalprintedstruttypeprostheticreconstructionforgiantcelltumorofboneindistalfemur |