The utilization of a synthetic bone void filler (JAX) in the repair of a femoral segmental defect

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: Currently available synthetic void fillers are indicated for bony voids or gaps that are not intrinsic to the stability of the structure. Jax^™ TCP (tricalcium phosphate) is an osteoconductive bioceramic fabricated into 4 mm granules with a unique interlocking form, promoting structural integrity while allowing bone in-growth. The objective of this study was to assess bone ingrowth using a large, critically sized, femoral defect.

Methods: A 5 cm segmental ostectomy was created in the mid-diaphysis of 16 adult ovine femora. A stainless steel intramedullary nail was introduced and locked with two proximal and two distal fully-threaded locking screws. Each defect was surrounded with a resorbable macroporous poly (L-lactide-co-D, L) lactide mesh acting as graft containment. Treatment groups (n=4) were as follows: 1) Empty defect; 2) Morselized cortical bone; 3) Cortical strut; 4) Jax TCP. Serial radiographs were taken postoperatively and at two, four and six months. Femora retrieved at necropsy (six months) underwent computed tomography for volumetric analysis followed by histological assessment of the biological response.

Results: Little bone was apparent in the empty defect group, whereas significant bone was evident in both autograft groups and the Jax TCP group. Three-dimensional CT reconstructions and volumetric analysis were in close agreement with the radiographic findings.

Clinical significance: Jax TCP bone graft substitute has been proven to be effective in the healing of a large, critically sized, contained segmental defect. The healing observed was superior to that of cortical struts and the new bone laid down had similar radio-opacity to autograft.

• References

• 1 Giannoudis PV, Dinopoulos H, Tsiridis E. Bone substitutes: an update. Injury 2005; 36S: S20-S27.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Betz RR. Limitations of autograft and allograft: new synthetic solutions. Orthopedics 2002; 25: S561-S570.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Dressman H. Ueber Knochenplombierung. Beitr Klin Chir 1892; 9: 804-806.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Blaha JD. Calcium sulfate bone-void filler. Orthopedics 1998; 21: 1017-1019.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Gitelis S. Use of calcium sulfate-based bone graft substitute for benign bone lesions. Orthopedics 2001; 24: 162-166.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Kelly CM, Wilkins RM, Gitelis S. et al. The use of a surgical grade calcium sulfate as a bone graft substitute: Results of a multicenter trial. Clin Orthop Rel Res 2000; 382: 42-50.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 http://global.smith-nephew.com/us/9650.htm. Last accessed July 2007
  PubMed
• 8 Salkeld SL, Patron LP, Barrack RL. et al. The effect of osteogenic protein-1 on the healing of segmental bone defects treated with autograft or allograft bone. J Bone Joint Surg 2001; 83–A: 803-816.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Szpalski M, Gunzburg R. Applications of calcium phosphate-based cancellous bone void fillers in trauma surgery. Orthopedics 2002; 25: s601-609.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Gazdag AR, Lane JM, Glaser D. et al. Alternative to autogenous bone graft: Efficacy and indications. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 1995; 3: 1-8.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Bauer TW, Muschler GF. Bone graft materials: An overview of the basic science. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000; 371: 10-27.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Betz RR. Limitations of autograft and allograft: new synthetic solutions. Orthopedics 2002; 25: s561-570.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Cancedda R, Giannoni P, Mastrogiacomo M. A tissue engineering approach to bone repair in large animal models and in clinical practice. Biomaterials 2007; Oct 28: 4240-4250.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Clarke SA, Hoskins NL, Jordan GR. et al. Healing of an ulnar defect using a proprietary TCP bone graft substitute, JAX in association with auto-logous osteogenic cells and growth factors. Bone 2007; 40: 939-947.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Quarto R, Mastrogiacomo M, Cancedda R. et al. Repair of large bone defects with the use of auto-logous bone marrow stromal cells. N England J Med 2001; 5: 385-386.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Burg KJ, Porter S, Kellam JF. Biomaterial developments for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2000; 21: 2347-2359.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Hinz P, Wolf E, Schwesinger G. et al. A new resorbable bone void filler in trauma: Early clinical experience and histologic evaluation. Orthopedics 2002; 25: s597-600.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Bucholz RW. Nonallograft osteoconductive bone graft substitutes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; 395: 44-52.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Schmalzried TP, Grogan TJ, Neumeier PA. et al. Metal removal in a pediatric population: benign procedure or necessary evil?. J Pediatr Orthop 1991; 11: 72-76.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Pluhar GE, Turner AS, Pierce AR. et al. A comparison of two biomaterial carriers for osteogenic protein – 1 (BMP-7) in an ovine critical defect model. J Bone Joint Surg 2006; 88: 960-966.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Viateau V, Guillemin G, Bousson V. et al. Long-bone critical-size defects treated with tissue-engineered grafts: A study on sheep. J Orthop Res 2007; 25: 741-749.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Arinzeh TL, Peter SJ, Arhambault MP. et al. Allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells regenerate bone in a critical- sized canine segmental defect. J Bone Joint Surg 2003; 85–A (10) 1927-1935.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Kraus KH, Kirker-Head C. Mesenchymal stem cells and bone regeneration. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 232-242.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar