Search

Introduction: The induced membrane technique for the treatment of large bone defects consists of a 2-stage procedure. In the first stage, a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement spacer is inserted into the bony defect of a rat's femur and over a period of 2-4 weeks a membrane forms that encapsulates the defect/spacer. In a second operation the membrane is opened, the PMMA spacer is removed and the resulting cavity is filled with autologous bone. Since little effort has been made to replace the need for autologous bone this study was performed to elucidate the influence of different stem cells and the membrane itself on bone healing in a critical size femur defect model in rats. Especially the question should be addressed whether the use of stem cells seeded on a β-TCP scaffold is equivalent to syngeneic bone as defect filling in combination with the induced membrane technique.Materials and Methods: A total of 96 male Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats received a 10 mm critical size defect of the femur, which was stabilized by a plate osteosynthesis and filled with PMMA cement. In a second step the spacer was extracted and the defects were filled with syngeneic bone, β-TCP with MSC + EPC or BM-MNC. In order to elucidate the influence of the induced membrane on bone defect healing the induced membrane was removed in half of the operated femurs. The defect area was analysed 8 weeks later for bone formation (osteocalcin staining), bone mineral density (BMD) and bone strength (3-point bending test).Results: New bone formation, bone mineral density and bone stiffness increased significantly, if the membrane was kept. The transplantation of biologically active material (syngeneic bone, stem cells on b-TCP) into the bone defect mostly led to a further increase of bone healing. Syngeneic bone had the greatest impact on bone healing however defects treated with stem cells were oftentimes comparable.Conclusion: For the first time we demonstrated the effect of the induced membrane itself and different stem cells on critical size defect healing. This could be a promising approach to reduce the need for autologous bone transplantation with its' limited availability and donor site morbidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Introduction: The development of new megaprosthesis for the treatment of large bone defects provides important options to orthopaedic oncologic surgeons for the replacement of skeletal segments, such as the long bones of the upper and lower limbs and the relative joints. We implanted megaprosthesis using either a one-step or two-step technique depending on the patient's condition. The aim of this study was to evaluate retrospectively both clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent lower limb megaprosthesis implant. Materials and methods: A total of 32 patients were treated with mono- and bi-articular megaprosthesis subdivided as follows: proximal femur, distal femur, proximal tibia and total femur. The mean follow-up of patients was about 18 months (range 3 months to 5 years). Clinical and serial radiographic evaluations were conducted using standard methods (X-ray at 45 days, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months) and blood parameters of inflammation were monitored for at least 2 months. Results: Although the mean length of follow-up was only 18 months, the first patients to enter the study were monitored for 5 years and showed encouraging clinical results, with good articulation of the segments, no somato-sensory or motor deficit and acceptable functional recovery. During surgery and, more importantly, in pre-operative planning, much attention should be given to the evaluation of the extensor apparatus, preserving it and, when necessary, reinforcing it with tendon substitutes. Discussion: Megaprosthesis in extreme cases of severe bone loss and prosthetic failure is a potential solution for the orthopaedic surgeon. In oncological surgery, the opportunity to restore functionality to the patient (although not ad integrum) is important for both the patient and the surgeon. The high mortality associated with cancer precludes long-term patient follow-up; therefore, there is a lack of certainty about the survival of this type of prosthesis and any medium- to long-term complications that may occur. Nevertheless, patients should be considered as an oncologic patient, not because of the disease, but because of the limited therapeutic options available. Conclusions: Megaprosthesis provides a valuable opportunity to restore functionality to patients with highly disabling diseases. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Introduction: The recent evolution of prosthesis technology has enabled the surgeon to replace entire limbs. These special prostheses, or megaprostheses, were developed for the treatment of severe oncological bone loss; however, the indications and applications of these devices have expanded to other orthopaedic and trauma situations. For some years, surgeons have been implanting megaprostheses in non-oncological conditions, such as acute trauma in severe bone loss and poor bone quality; post-traumatic failures, both aseptic and septic (represented by complex non-unions and critical size bone defects); major bone loss in prosthetic revision, both aseptic and septic; periprosthetic fractures with component mobilisation and poor bone stock condition. The purpose of this study was to evaluate retrospectively the complications during and after the implantation of megaprosthesis of the lower limb in post-traumatic and prosthetic bone loss, and to propose tips about how to avoid and manage such complications., Materials and Methods: All the complications and difficulties we have encountered during or after the implantation of megaprosthesis in non-oncology patients were evaluated retrospectively. A total of 72 patients were treated with large resection mono-and bi-articular prostheses between January 2008 and January 2014., Results: The main critical problems found in the study were: restoration of the correct length and rotation of the limb; reconstruction of the knee extensor mechanism; trochanteric reconstruction; stability/dislocation of the implant; mobility/range of motion (ROM) of the implant; skin cover; sepsis, and bone quality., Conclusion: Megaprosthesis in severe bone loss can be considered as an available solution for the orthopaedic surgeon in extreme, appropriately selected cases. This type of complex surgery must be performed in specialised centres where knowledge and technologies are present. Patients with severe bone loss should not be treated in the same way as oncology patients because life expectancy is definitely longer; therefore, the surgical technique and the system implantation must be extremely rigorous to ensure longevity of the prosthesis. The characteristics of the bone and soft tissue conditions in these patients are very different from those presented by oncology patients, which creates critical problems that the surgeon should be able to manage to avoid serious complications., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)