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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hu, Xin, Lu, Minxun, Zhang, Yuqi, Wang, Yitian, Min, Li, Tu, Chongqi
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