Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2002 / Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of autograft, coralline graft, and xenograft in promoting posterior spinal fusion

Posterior spinal füzyon oluşturmada otogreft, koral greft ve ksenogreft etkinliklerinin karşılaştırlması

Pages
147–154
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Our data substantiates the use of coralline graft and xenograft as appropriate and efficient materials alternative to autografts in obtaining posterior spinal fusion.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Bone grafting constitutes a vital component in many reconstructive orthopaedic surgical procedures.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Decortication of posterior structures of the thoracal 10-12. vertebrae was performed in all rabbits.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Our data substantiates the use of coralline graft and xenograft as appropriate and efficient materials alternative to autografts in obtaining posterior spinal fusion.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Biyouyumlu materyaller · Kemik nakli · Modeller

Abstract

Objectives: Bone grafting constitutes a vital component in many reconstructive orthopaedic surgical procedures. They are widely used in patients undergoing thoracolumbar spinal surgery. The three choices of bone are autograft, coralline graft, and xenograft. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the contribution of autograft, coralline graft, and xenograft to spinal fusion. Methods: Thirty-six New Zealand albino rabbits were divided into four groups of equal size. Decortication of posterior structures of the thoracal 10-12. vertebrae was performed in all rabbits. No graft material was used in group I (controls). The remaining three groups received autologous iliac crest bone graft, coralline graft, and xenograft dehydrated by solvents, respectively. The rabbits were sacrificed eight weeks postoperatively for manual, radiologic, histologic, and biomechanical evaluations. Results: Manual and radiologic evaluations showed no fusion in the control group in which the lowest histologic and biomechanical scores were obtained. Manually and radiologically, fusion was found in 85.7% and in 78.5% with autologous iliac crest bone graft; in 61.1% and 61.1% with coralline graft, and in 55.5% and 50.0% with xenograft, respectively. Conclusion: Our data substantiates the use of coralline graft and xenograft as appropriate and efficient materials alternative to autografts in obtaining posterior spinal fusion.

Özet

Amaç: Kemik greftleme işlemleri, ortopedik cerrahinin önemli bir parçasını oluşturur. Bu işlemler özellikle torakolumbal spinal cerrahi uygulanan hastalarda yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Kemik tercihlerinden üçünü otogreft, koral greft ve ksenogreft oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışmada otogreft, koral greft ve ksenogreftin etkinlikleri değerlendirildi. Çalışma planı: Otuz altı Yeni Zelanda albino tavşanı, dokuzarlı dört gruba ayrıldı. Tüm tavşanların torakal 10-12. vertebralarının posterior elemanları dekortike edildi. Kontrol grubu olarak seçilen grup I' de herhangi bir greft materyali kullanılmadı. Grup II'de otolog iliak kanat grefti, grup III'de koral greft, grup IV'de ise solventlerle dehidrate edilmiş ksenogreft kullanıldı. Ameliyatı izleyen sekizinci hafta sonunda tavşanların yaşamları sonlandırıldı ve manuel, radyolojik, histolojik ve biyomekanik açılardan değerlendirildi. Sonuçlar: Kontrol grubunda manuel ve radyolojik olarak füzyon izlenmedi. En düşük histolojik ve biyomekanik değerler grup I'de görüldü. Grup II'de palpasyonla %85.7, radyolojik olarak %78.5; grup III'de hem palpasyon hem de radyolojik olarak %61.1, grup IV'de ise palpasyonla %55.5, radyolojik olarak %50.0 füzyon saptandı. Çıkarımlar: Koral greft ve ksenogreftin, posterior spinal füzyon oluşturmada uygun ve etkili oldukları ve otogreftlere alternatif olarak kullanılabilecekleri sonucuna varıldı.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARAİSMAİLOĞLU, T. N., TOMAK, Y., ANDAÇ, A., ERGUN, E. (2002). Comparison of autograft, coralline graft, and xenograft in promoting posterior spinal fusion. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 2, 147–154. https://ajindex.com/articles/354762

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Edmonson AS. Arthrodesis of spine. In: Crenshaw AH, editor. Campbell operative orthopaedics. Vol. 5, 8th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Year Book; 1992. p. 3583-603. 2. Boden DS. Bone growth enhancing substances for spinal fusion. In: Garfin SR, Vaccaro AR, editors. Orthopaedic knowledge update spine. 1st ed. Rosemont: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1997. p. 63-73. 3. Dawson EG, Clader TJ, Bassett LW. A comparison of different methods used to diagnose pseudarthrosis following posterior spinal fusion for scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1985;67:1153-9. 4. Aurori BF, Weierman RJ, Lowell HA, Nadel CI, Parsons JR. Pseudarthrosis after spinal fusion for scoliosis. A comparison of autogeneic and allogeneic bone grafts. Clin Orthop 1985;(199):153-8. 5. Steinmann JC, Herkowitz HN. Pseudarthrosis of the spine. Clin Orthop 1992;(284):80-90. 6. Emery SE, Brazinski MS, Koka A, Bensusan JS, Stevenson S. The biological and biomechanical effects of irradiation on anterior spinal bone grafts in a canine model. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1994;76:540-8. 7. Tay BK, Le AX, Heilman M, Lotz J, Bradford DS. Use of a collagen-hydroxyapatite matrix in spinal fusion. A rabbit model. Spine 1998;23:2276-81. 8. Morone MA, Boden SD. Experimental posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion with a demineralized bone matrix gel. Spine 1998;23:159-67. 9. Steffen T, Marchesi D, Aebi M. Posterolateral and anterior interbody spinal fusion models in the sheep. Clin Orthop 2000;(371):28-37. 10. Schimandle JH, Boden SD. Spine update. The use of animal models to study spinal fusion. Spine 1994;19:1998-2006. 11. Oikarinen J. Experimental spinal fusion with decalcified bone matrix and deep-frozen allogeneic bone in rabbits. Clin Orthop 1982;(162):210-8. 12.Holmes R, Mooney V, Bucholz R, Tencer A. A coralline hydroxyapatite bone graft substitute. Preliminary report. Clin Orthop 1984;(188):252-62. 13.Muschler GF, Huber B, Ullman T, Barth R, Easley K, Otis JO, et al. Evaluation of bone-grafting materials in a new canine segmental spinal fusion model. J Orthop Res 1993;11:514-24. 14. Kış M, Akalın S, Benli T, Tüzüner M, ‚Çıtak M, Özlü S. Kemik bankalama ve erken klinik deneyimlerimiz. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 1993;27:100-3. 15. Şener N, Özger H. Kemik greftleri ve kemik bankaları. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 1995;29:335-8. 16. Tomak Y, Dabak N, Kökçü C, Gülman B, Karaismailoğlu TN, Andaç A. Allogreft kullanımı ve kemik bankası Üzerine deneyimlerimiz. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2000;32:163-9. 17. Gün