Objectives. We sought to determine if a durable bilayer implant composed of trabecular metal with autologous periosteum on top would be suitable to reconstitute large osteochondral defects. This design would allow for secure implant fixation, subsequent integration and remodeling. Materials and Methods. Adult sheep were randomly assigned to one of three groups (n = 8/group): 1. trabecular metal/periosteal graft (TMPG), 2. trabecular metal (TM), 3. empty defect (ED). Cartilage and bone healing were assessed macroscopically, biochemically (type II collagen, sulfated glycosaminoglycan (sGAG) and double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) content) and histologically. Results. At 16 weeks post-operatively, histological scores amongst treatment groups were not statistically different (TMPG: overall 12.7, cartilage 8.6, bone 4.1; TM: overall 14.2, cartilage 9.5, bone 4.9; ED: overall 13.6, cartilage 9.1, bone 4.5). Metal scaffolds were incorporated into the surrounding bone, both in TM and TMPG. The sGAG yield was lower in the neo-cartilage regions compared with the articular cartilage (AC) controls (TMPG 20.8/AC 39.5, TM 25.6/AC 33.3, ED 32.2/AC 40.2 µg sGAG/1 mg respectively), with statistical significance being achieved for the TMPG group (p < 0.05). Hypercellularity of the neo-cartilage was found in TM and ED, as the dsDNA content was significantly higher (p < 0.05) compared with contralateral AC controls (TM 126.7/AC 71.1, ED 99.3/AC 62.8 ng dsDNA/1 mg). The highest type II collagen content was found in neo-cartilage after TM compared with TMPG and ED (TM 60%/TMPG 40%/ED 39%). Inter-treatment differences were not significant. Conclusions. TM is a highly suitable material for the reconstitution of osseous defects. TM enables excellent bony ingrowth and fast integration. However, combined with autologous periosteum, such a biocomposite failed to promote satisfactory neo-cartilage formation. Cite this article: E. H. Mrosek, H-W. Chung, J. S. Fitzsimmons, S. W. O’Driscoll, G. G. Reinholz, J. C. Schagemann.
Aims. The value of core decompression (CD) in the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether CD combined with other treatments could improve the clinical and radiological outcomes of ONFH patients compared with CD alone. Methods. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases until June 2020. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) comparing CD alone and CD combined with other measures (CD + cell therapy, CD + bone grafting, CD +
The main advantage of 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants is the potential to promote enhanced bony fixation due to their controllable porous structure. In this study we investigated the extent of osseointegration in retrieved 3D-printed acetabular implants. We compared two groups, one made via 3D-printing (n = 7) and the other using conventional techniques (n = 7). We collected implant details, type of surgery and removal technique, patient demographics, and clinical history. Bone integration was assessed by macroscopic visual analysis, followed by sectioning to allow undecalcified histology on eight sections (~200 µm) for each implant. The outcome measures considered were area of bone attachment (%), extent of bone ingrowth (%), bone-implant contact (%), and depth of ingrowth (%), and these were quantified using a line-intercept method.Aims
Methods
In order to address acetabular defects, porous metal revision acetabular components and augments have been developed, which require fixation to each other. The fixation technique that results in the smallest relative movement between the components, as well as its influence on the primary stability with the host bone, have not previously been determined. A total of 18 composite hemipelvises with a Paprosky IIB defect were implanted using a porous titanium 56 mm multihole acetabular component and 1 cm augment. Each acetabular component and augment was affixed to the bone using two screws, while the method of fixation between the acetabular component and augment varied for the three groups of six hemipelvises: group S, screw fixation only; group SC, screw plus cement fixation; group C, cement fixation only. The implanted hemipelvises were cyclically loaded to three different loading maxima (0.5 kN, 0.9 kN, and 1.8 kN).Objectives
Methods