Comparison of transforaminal and posterior lumbar interbody fusion outcomes in patients receiving a novel allograft versus rhBMP-2: a radiographic and patient-reported outcomes analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) has been demonstrated to achieve the highest rates of arthrodesis in multilevel lumbar fusion but is also associated with possible perioperative morbidity. A novel allograft (OSTEOAMP) is a differentiated allograft that retains growth factors supporting bone healing. The authors sought to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of rhBMP-2 and the novel allograft in lumbar interbody arthrodesis to determine if the latter may be a safer and equally effective alternative to rhBMP-2 for single- and multilevel posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF or TLIF). METHODS: Patients who underwent single- or multilevel TLIF or PLIF using either OSTEOAMP or rhBMP-2 at the authors' institution over a 2-year period were prospectively followed for 12 months. Healthcare utilization, safety measures, patient satisfaction, physical disability (measured on the Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), back and leg pain (on the numeric rating scale [NRS]), quality of life (on the EQ-5D scale), and return to work (RTW) were prospectively recorded. For purposes of this study, this consecutive series was retrospectively analyzed and pseudarthrosis rates were assessed at 2 years of follow-up. All patients (100%) had both 12-month patient-reported outcome follow-up and 24-month clinical and radiographic follow-up. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred fifty-four patients (654 treated with OSTEOAMP, 500 with rhBMP-2) were prospectively enrolled in the institutional registry. After propensity score matching, there were no significant baseline differences between 330 novel allograft and 330 rhBMP-2 cases. Perioperative morbidity and 90-day hospital readmission (3.3% vs 2.4%, p = 0.485) did not significantly differ between the novel allograft and the rhBMP-2 cases. At the 2-year follow-up, symptomatic pseudarthrosis requiring revision surgery occurred in 8 patients (2.4%) with OSTEOAMP and 6 patients (1.8%) with rhBMP-2 (p = 0.589). The overall fusion rate at 2 years was similar between groups (p = 0.213). Both groups showed significant and equivalent improvement in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from baseline to 12-month follow-up, with no significant difference in 1-year mean NRS leg pain score (2.5 vs 2.7), ODI (25 vs 26), quality-adjusted life years (0.73 vs 0.73), satisfaction (83% vs 80%), or RTW (6.6 vs 7 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: In the authors' institutional experience, OSTEOAMP is a clinically viable substitute for rhBMP-2 for single- and multilevel lumbar fusion. This novel allograft provides clinically effective arthrodesis and improvements in PROMs comparable to rhBMP-2 with a similar safety profile. Additional indications and outcome assessment in longitudinal studies are needed to further characterize this allogeneic graft.

The fusion rates at different times of cortical iliac crest autograft or allograft compared with cages after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The cortical iliac crest autograft (CICA)/structural allograft (SA) has still been recognized as the gold standard for the ACDF technique for its high degree of histocompatibility and osteoinduction ability though the flourishing and evolving cage development. However, there was no further indication for using CICA/SA in ACDF based on basic information of inpatients. Our operative experience implied that applying CICA/SA has an advantage on faster fusion but not the long-term fusion rate. Therefore, our study aimed to compare the fusion rates between CICA and cage, between SA and cage, and between CICA/CA and cage. METHODS: Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), a comprehensive literature search of electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was conducted to identify these clinical trials that investigated the postoperative 3, 6, 12 and 24 months fusion rates of CICA/structural SA versus cage. Assessment of risk of bias, data extraction and statistical analysis were then carried out by two independent authors with the resolve-by-consensus method. The primary outcome was fusion rate at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. The secondary outcomes were also meta-analyzed such as hardware complications, operative duration and hospitalization time. Our meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (Identifier: CRD42022345247). RESULT: A total of 3451 segments (2398 patients) derived from 34 studies were included after the screening of 3366 articles. The segmental fusion rates of CICA were higher than cages at 3 (P = 0.184, I2 = 40.9%) and 6 (P = 0.147, I2 = 38.8%) months postoperatively, but not 12 (P = 0.988, I2 = 0.0%) and 24 (P = 0.055, I2 = 65.6%) months postoperatively. And there was no significant difference in segmental fusion rates between SA and cage at none of 3 (P = 0.047, I2 = 62.2%), 6 (P = 0.179, I2 = 41.9%) and 12 (P = 0.049, I2 = 58.0%) months after operations. As for secondary outcomes, the CICA was inferior to cages in terms of hardware complications, operative time, blood loss, hospitalization time, interbody height, disk height and Odom rating. The hardware complication of using SA was significantly higher than the cage, but not the hospitalization time, disk height, NDI and Odom rating. CONCLUSION: Applying CICA has an advantage on faster fusion than using a cage but not the long-term fusion rate in ACDF. Future high-quality RCTs regarding the hardware complications between CICA and cage in younger patients are warranted for the deduced indication.

Virtual Surgical Planning, 3D-Printing and Customized Bone Allograft for Acute Correction of Severe Genu Varum in Children.

Complex deformities of lower limbs are frequent in children with genetic or metabolic skeletal disorders. Early correction is frequently required, but it is technically difficult and burdened by complications and recurrence. Herein, we described the case of a 7-year-old girl affected by severe bilateral genu varum due to spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia. The patient was treated by patient-specific osteotomies and customized structural wedge allograft using Virtual Surgical Planning (VSP) and 3D-printed patient-specific instrumentation (PSI). The entire process was performed through an in-hospital 3D-printing Point-of-Care (POC). VSP and 3D-printing applied to pediatric orthopedic surgery may allow personalization of corrective osteotomies and customization of structural allografts by using low-cost in-hospital POC. However, optimal and definitive alignment is rarely achieved in such severe deformities in growing skeleton through a single operation.

Titanium versus polyetheretherketone versus structural allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review.

Introduction: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common procedure to address cervical spine pathology. The most common grafts used are titanium, polyetheretherketone (PEEK), or structural allograft. Comparison of fusion rate is difficult due to non-standardized methods of assessment. We stratified studies by method of fusion assessment and performed a systematic review of fusion rates for titanium, PEEK, and allograft. Research question: Which of the common implants used in ACDF has the highest reported rate of fusion? Materials and methods: An experienced librarian performed a five-database systematic search for published articles between 01/01/1990 and 08/07/2021. Studies performed in adults with at least 1 year of radiographic follow up were included. The primary outcome was the rate of fusion. Fusion criteria were stratified into 6 classes based upon best practices. Results: 34 studies met inclusion criteria. 10 studies involving 924 patients with 1094 cervical levels, used tier 1 fusion criteria and 6 studies (309 patients and 367 levels) used tier 2 fusion criteria. Forty seven percent of the studies used class 3-6 fusion criteria and were not included in the analysis. Fusion rates did differ between titanium (avg. 87.3%, range 84%-100%), PEEK (avg. 92.8%, range 62%-100%), and structural allograft (avg. 94.67%, range 82%-100%). Discussion and conclusion: After stratifying studies by fusion criteria, significant heterogeneity in study design and fusion assessment prohibited the performance of a meta-analysis. Fusion rate did not differ by graft type. Important surgical goals aside from fusion rate, such as degree of deformity correction, could not be assessed. Future studies with standardized high-quality methods of assessing fusion, are required.

Revision of Failed Sacroiliac Joint Posterior Interpositional Structural Allograft Stabilization with Lateral Porous Titanium Implants: A Multicenter Case Series.

Background: Distraction arthrodesis (DA) and stabilization of the sacroiliac (SI) joint by placing standalone structural allograft (SA) into the joint from a posterior trajectory has recently been introduced as a surgical procedure for chronic SI joint pain refractory to non-operative care. Methods: Retrospective case series of patients with recurrent and/or persistent pain after placement of one or more interpositional/intraarticular standalone SAs between the ilium and sacrum using a posterior procedure to treat SI joint pain/dysfunction. Patients subsequently underwent surgical revision with porous titanium fusion implants using a lateral transfixing procedure. The demographic, clinical, and radiographic features of these cases are described. Results: Data were available for 37 patients. The average (SD) age was 57 (13) years, 62% were female, and the average BMI was 31 (5.4). On average, two SA implants were placed per joint; 46% of cases were bilateral. At follow-up, two common themes were identified: lucencies around the implants and suboptimal implant position. None of the cases showed radiographic fusion of the SI joint prior to revision. One patient had an inflammatory reaction to the SA. All patients presented for revision due to either continued (49%) or recurrence (51%) of pain. In one revision case, the SA was forced ventrally, resulting in a sacral fracture, which was treated conservatively without sequelae. Conclusions: The popularity of standalone SA for SI joint stabilization/fusion with a posterior procedure is increasing. This case series demonstrates that clinical failures from this procedure may require surgical revision. The proposed fusion strategy (DA) for these products is unproven in the SI joint, and, therefore, properly conducted prospective randomized clinical trials with long-term clinical and radiographic follow-up are important to establish the safety and efficacy of this approach. In the meantime, the placement of lateral titanium implants appears to be an effective revision strategy.

Simultaneous bilateral opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy with structural allograft impaction results in excellent early recovery and pain reduction similar unilateral osteotomy.

BACKGROUND: Patients suffering from bilateral combined medial osteoarthritis and varus alignment of the knee are eligible for bilateral high tibial osteotomy (HTO) in two-staged surgery. The impact of bilateral HTO surgery on rehabilitation and early outcomes have not yet been reported in the literature, even though these features are decisive in establishing whether a patient is preferably treated in one or two stages. METHODS: A total of 29 patients were followed after simultaneous bilateral HTO surgery. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score - Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS) and Lysholm scores were recorded at 3, 6 and 12 months. Results were compared with outcomes of unilateral HTO surgery to asses the additional impact of simultaneous bilateral HTO surgery on the early rehabilitation and recovery of simultaneous bilateral HTO surgery. RESULTS: Three months after surgery, NRS pain scores decreased from 60.5 to 40.9 and subsequently to 30.4 and 24.3 after 6 and 12 months, respectively. KOOS-PS scores improved from 50.0 to 44.3 after 3 months, to 33.9 and 29.8 after 6 and 12 months, respectively. Lysholm scores did not improve after 3 months (45.2-44.2), but significantly improved after 6 and 12 months (66.1 and 75.7, respectively). Compared with unilateral HTO surgery, similar improvements were seen after 6 and 12 months. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous bilateral HTO surgery generates similar clinical outcomes compared with unilateral HTO surgery and moreover it does not excessively prolong time to achieve these outcomes. It is safe and presumably a more effective approach to treat patients suffering bilateral medial osteoarthritis and varus alignment of the knee compared with two-staged surgery.

Structural Allograft Versus Synthetic Interbody Cage for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Comparison of 1-Year Outcomes From a National Database.

STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To compare 1-year perioperative complications between structural allograft (SA) and synthetic cage (SC) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using a national database. METHODS: The TriNetX Research Network was retrospectively queried. Patients undergoing initial single or multilevel ACDF surgery between October 1, 2015 and April 30, 2019 were propensity score matched based on age and comorbidities. The rates of 1-year revision ACDF surgery and reported diagnoses of pseudoarthrosis, surgical site infection (SSI), and dysphagia were compared between structural allograft and synthetic cage techniques. RESULTS: A comparison of 1-year outcomes between propensity score matched cohorts was conducted on 3056 patients undergoing single-level ACDF and 3510 patients undergoing multilevel ACDF. In single-level ACDF patients, there was no difference in 1-year revision ACDF surgery (P = .573), reported diagnoses of pseudoarthrosis (P = .413), SSI (P = .620), or dysphagia (P = .529) between SA and SC groups. In multilevel ACDF patients, there was a higher rate of revision surgery (SA 3.8% vs SC 7.3%, odds ratio = 1.982, P < .001) in the SC group, and a higher rate of dysphagia in the SA group (SA 15.9% vs SC 12.9%). CONCLUSION: While the overall revision and complication rate for single-level ACDF remains low despite interbody graft selection, SC implant selection may result in higher rates of revision surgery in multilevel procedures despite yielding lower rates of dysphagia. Further prospective study is warranted.

Structural Allograft Versus PEEK Implants in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to compare reported fusion rates after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using structural allograft versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody devices in patients with cervical spine degeneration. Our secondary objectives were to compare differences in rates of subsidence and reoperation and in patient-reported outcomes between the 2 groups. METHODS: Through a systematic review of the English-language literature using various databases, we identified 4702 articles. After we applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, 14 articles (7 randomized controlled trials, 4 prospective studies, and 3 retrospective studies) reporting fusion rates of structural allograft or PEEK interbody devices were eligible for our analysis. No randomized controlled trials compared outcomes of structural allograft versus PEEK interbody devices. Extracted data included authors, study years, study designs, sample sizes, patient ages, duration of follow-up, types of interbody devices used, fusion rates, definition of fusion, reoperation rates, subsidence rates, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Fusion rates were 82% to 100% for allograft and 88% to 98% for PEEK interbody devices. The reported data were insufficient to perform meta-analysis. Structural allograft had the highest reported rate of reoperation (14%), and PEEK interbody devices had the highest reported subsidence rate (18%). Patient-reported outcomes improved in both groups. There was insufficient high-quality evidence to compare the associations of various PEEK modifications with fusion rates. CONCLUSION: Fusion rates were similar between structural allograft and PEEK interbody devices when used for ACDF for cervical spine degeneration. Currently, there is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess associations of PEEK modifications with fusion rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Teriparatide (recombinant parathyroid hormone 1-34) enhances bone allograft integration in a clinically relevant pig model of segmental mandibulectomy.

Massive craniofacial bone loss poses a clinical challenge to maxillofacial surgeons. Structural bone allografts are readily available at tissue banks but are rarely used due to a high failure rate. Previous studies showed that intermittent administration of recombinant parathyroid hormone (rPTH) enhanced integration of allografts in a murine model of calvarial bone defect. To evaluate its translational potential, the hypothesis that rPTH would enhance healing of a mandibular allograft in a clinically relevant large animal model of mandibulectomy was tested. Porcine bone allografts were implanted into a 5-cm-long continuous mandible bone defect in six adult Yucatan minipigs, which were randomized to daily intramuscular injections of rPTH (1.75 µg/kg) and placebo (n = 3). Blood tests were performed on Day 56 preoperation, Day 0 and on Day 56 postoperation. Eight weeks after the surgery, bone healing was analyzed using high-resolution X-ray imaging (Faxitron and micro computed tomography [CT]) and three-point bending biomechanical testing. The results showed a significant 2.6-fold rPTH-induced increase in bone formation (p = 0.02). Biomechanically, the yield failure properties of the healed mandibles were significantly higher in the rPTH group (yield load: p < 0.05; energy to yield: p < 0.01), and the post-yield displacement and energy were higher in the placebo group (p < 0.05), suggesting increased mineralized integration of the allograft in the rPTH group. In contrast to similar rPTH therapy studies in dogs, no signs of hypercalcemia, hyperphosphatemia, or inflammation were detected. Taken together, we provide initial evidence that rPTH treatment enhances mandibular allograft healing in a clinically relevant large animal model.

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion performed using structural allograft or polyetheretherketone: pseudarthrosis and revision surgery rates with minimum 2-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: Both structural allograft and PEEK have been used for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). There are reports that PEEK has a higher pseudarthrosis rate than structural allograft. The authors compared pseudarthrosis, revision, subsidence, and loss of lordosis rates in patients with PEEK and structural allograft. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of patients who were treated with ACDF at their hospital between 2005 and 2017. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with either PEEK or structural allograft, anterior plate fixation, and a minimum 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were hybrid PEEK and allograft cases, additional posterior surgery, adjacent corpectomies, infection, tumor, stand-alone or integrated screw and cage devices, bone morphogenetic protein use, or lack of a minimum 2-year follow-up. Demographic variables, number of treated levels, interbody type (PEEK cage vs structural allograft), graft packing material, pseudarthrosis rates, revision surgery rates, subsidence, and cervical lordosis changes were collected. These data were analyzed by Pearson's chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test, according to the sample size and expected value) and Student t-test. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients (264 levels total, mean follow-up time 39.5 ± 24.0 months) were analyzed. Sixty-one patients had PEEK, and 107 patients had structural allograft. Pseudarthrosis rates for 1-level fusions were 5.4% (PEEK) and 3.4% (allograft) (p > 0.05); 2-level fusions were 7.1% (PEEK) and 8.1% (allograft) (p > 0.05); and ≥ 3-level fusions were 10% (PEEK) and 11.1% (allograft) (p > 0.05). There was no statistical difference in the subsidence magnitude between PEEK and allograft in 1-, 2-, and ≥ 3-level ACDF (p > 0.05). Postoperative lordosis loss was not different between cohorts for 1- and 2-level surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: In 1- and 2-level ACDF with plating involving the same number of fusion levels, there was no statistically significant difference in the pseudarthrosis rate, revision surgery rate, subsidence, and lordosis loss between PEEK cages and structural allograft.

Revision total hip arthroplasty using the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device for Paprosky type III defects involving the inferior margin of the acetabulum: a minimum five-year follow-up study.

Aims: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the minimum five-year outcome of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) using the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device (KARD) in patients with Paprosky type III acetabular defects and destruction of the inferior margin of the acetabulum. Patients and Methods: We identified 36 patients (37 hips) who underwent revision THA under these circumstances using the KARD, fresh frozen allograft femoral heads, and reconstruction of the inferior margin of the acetabulum. The Merle d'Aubigné system was used for clinical assessment. Serial anteroposterior pelvic radiographs were used to assess migration of the acetabular component. Results: At a mean follow-up of 8.2 years (5 to 19.3), the mean Merle d'Aubigné score increased from 12.5 (5 to 18) preoperatively to 16.5 (10 to 18) (p < 0.0001). The survival rate at ten years was 95.3% (sd 4.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 86.4 to 100) and 76.5% (sd 9.9, 95% CI 57.0 to 95.9) using aseptic loosening and radiological loosening as the endpoints, respectively. Conclusion: These results show that the use of the KARD with reconstruction of the inferior margin of the acetabulum in revision THA is associated with acceptable clinical results and survival at mid-term follow-up with, however, a high rate of migration of the acetabular component of 21.6%. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:725-32.

A case of bilateral revision total knee arthroplasty using distal femoral allograft-prosthesis composite and femoral head allografting at the tibial site with a varus-valgus constrained prosthesis: ten-year follow up.

BACKGROUND: We report the successful use of allograft-prosthesis composite (APC) and structural femoral head allografting in the bilateral reconstruction of large femoral and tibial uncontained defects during revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). CASE PRESENTATION: A 67-year-old female with degenerative arthritis underwent bilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using the Press Fit Condylar (PFC) modular knee system at our clinic in March, 1996. At 8 years postoperatively, the patient presented with painful, bilateral varus knees, with swelling, limited passive range of motion (ROM), and severe instability. We treated to reconstruct both knee using a femoral head allograft at the tibial site, a structural distal femoral allograft at the femoral site, and a varus-valgus constrained (VVC) prosthesis with cement. At the 10-year follow up, we found no infection, graft failure, loosening of implants, in spite of using massive bilateral structural femoral head allografts in RTKA. CONCLUSION: The use of APC enabled a stable and durable reconstruction in this uncommon presentation with large femoral bone deficiencies encountered during a RTKA.

Structural Allograft Supporting a Trabecular Metal Cup Provides Durable Results in Complex Revision Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is challenging specially in the presence of severe acetabular bone deficiency. We report the use of a highly porous revision shell augmented by structural allograft to provide structural support and coverage to the acetabular component. METHODS: We identified 56 patients (58 hips) undergoing revision THA, where a trabecular metal revision cup was supported by structural allograft. Mean follow-up was 5.4 years (range 2-12 years). Preoperatively acetabular bone defects were classified as Paprosky 2A in 6 hips (10%), 2B in 12 hips (21%), 2C in 12 hips (21%), 3A in 11 hips (19%), and 3B in 17 hips (29%). Structural allograft configuration was classified as type 1 (flying buttress) in 13 hips, type 2 (dome support) in 23 hips, and type 3 (footings) in 17 hips, with 5 hips having combined configurations. RESULTS: All hips showed evidence of union between the allograft and host bone at latest follow-up, 14 hips had partial resorption of the allograft that did not affect cup stability. Three acetabular components demonstrated failure of ingrowth. Survivorship-free from radiographic acetabular loosening as end point was 94% at 5 years. The 5-year survivorship with revision for any reason as end point was 90%. CONCLUSION: Trabecular metal shells combined with structural bone allograft in revision THA demonstrate excellent midterm survival, with 94% of acetabular components obtaining stable union onto host bone at 5 years. Allograft restored bone stock with minimal resorption, and when it occurred did not alter the survivorship of the acetabular component.

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the Kerboull Acetabular Reinforcement Device and Structural Allograft for Severe Defects of the Acetabulum.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to review our experience with Kerboull reinforcement device combined with bulk allograft for management of severe acetabular defects. METHODS: We investigated the results of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) in 65 hips of 59 patients (10 male, 49 female) with Paprosky type 3A or 3B acetabular bone defects. Functional outcome was assessed using the Merle d'Aubigne hip score. Post-operative radiographs were examined for evidence of cup loosening. The mean age at revision THA was 59.1 years (23-85) and mean follow-up duration was 11.2 years (2-15). RESULTS: The Merle d'Aubigne hip score improved from 10.6 points (5-15) before surgery to 17.1 points (15-18) (P < .05) at the time of last investigation. In this series, mean coverage of the bone graft was 83.0% (34.6-100) of the loading portion in the horizontal plane on radiography immediately after revision. However, consolidation of the bone graft was completed within 12 months for all cases. There were 4 radiological failures due to acetabular aseptic loosening at a mean of 10.8 years (8-13) after index surgery; all 4 cases demonstrated massive bone loss that no part of the rounded plate could be placed on the host bone. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the 15.2-year survival rate was 85.1% (95% confidence interval 71-99) with re-revision surgery for any reason as the end point. CONCLUSION: Despite massive bone defects, we achieved favorable results for revision THA using bulk allograft and the Kerboull reinforcement device.

Comparative assessment of different reconstructive techniques of distal femur in revision total knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Bone loss is often encountered in revision total knee arthroplasty. In particular, when the cortex of distal femur is breached, the surgical decision on the reconstructive options to be taken is challenging due to the variety of defects and the lack of data from clinical or experimental studies that can support it. The aim of the present work was to test the hypothesis that for an identical defect and bone condition, each reconstructive technique option has a dissimilar stress and stability behaviour, which may be related to differing longevity of the revision procedure. METHODS: Triaxial strain gauges and video extensometer were used to measure distal cortex strains and implant stability in eight reconstructive techniques replicated with synthetic femur under a load of 2030N. To assess the cancellous bone strains, finite element models were developed and validated. RESULTS: The measured strains showed that the distal cortex is not immune to the different reconstructive techniques, when applied to an identical defect; however, significant differences (P < 0.05) were found only between bone graft and metal augment on the 12-mm larger distal defect. The stem addition improves the stability of all reconstructive techniques; however, significant differences (P = 0.03) were found only on the bone-graft technique. CONCLUSIONS: Cement-fill and metal-augment techniques, applied to the 4-mm smaller defect, are not associated with different structural behaviour, while for the 12-mm larger defect, the metal-augment and bone-graft techniques presented distinct biomechanical effects. These effects, by themselves, may not be sufficient to be associated with a different longevity of the revision procedure among techniques, when the stem is added to the bone-graft technique. These findings, based on independent scientific understanding and advanced prediction tools, can improve the surgical decision-making process, when the peripheral cortex of the distal femur is breached.

The role of cages in the management of severe acetabular bone defects at revision arthroplasty.

An uncemented hemispherical acetabular component is the mainstay of acetabular revision and gives excellent long-term results. Occasionally, the degree of acetabular bone loss means that a hemispherical component will be unstable when sited in the correct anatomical location or there is minimal bleeding host bone left for biological fixation. On these occasions an alternative method of reconstruction has to be used. A major column structural allograft has been shown to restore the deficient bone stock to some degree, but it needs to be off-loaded with a reconstruction cage to prevent collapse of the graft. The use of porous metal augments is a promising method of overcoming some of the problems associated with structural allograft. If the defect is large, the augment needs to be protected by a cage to allow ingrowth to occur. Cup-cage reconstruction is an effective method of treating chronic pelvic discontinuity and large contained or uncontained bone defects. This paper presents the indications, surgical techniques and outcomes of various methods which use acetabular reconstruction cages for revision total hip arthroplasty.

The management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty: rebuild, reinforce, and augment.

The treatment of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty has evolved over the past decade. While the management of small to moderate sized defects has demonstrated good results with a variety of traditional techniques (cement and screws, small metal augments, impaction bone grafting or modular stems), the treatment of severe defects continues to be problematic. The use of a structural allograft has declined in recent years due to an increased failure rate with long-term follow-up and with the introduction of highly porous metal augments that emphasise biological metaphyseal fixation. Recently published mid-term results on the use of tantalum cones in patients with severe bone loss has reaffirmed the success of this treatment strategy.

The Use of Structural Distal Femoral Allograft for Acetabular Reconstruction of Paprosky Type IIIA Defects at a Mean 21 Years of Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with a nonsupportive superior acetabulum often requires secondary augmentation beyond a hemispherical cup to achieve reliable fixation. Treatment options include using a higher hip center, jumbo cup, custom triflange implant, cages, or filling the superior defect with a bilobed implant, structural allograft, or metal augments. We previously reported a cohort of 31 patients treated with porous-coated hemispherical cups and distal femoral allograft for Paprosky type IIIA acetabular defects. METHODS: The original cohort of 31 hips was retrospectively reviewed. Fourteen patients died with <15 years of follow-up, and 2 were lost to follow-up. This left 15 patients for evaluation including 5 males and 10 females, with an average age of 61 years (range: 37-74 years) at the time of surgery. Acetabular revision was performed with the use of a porous-coated hemispherical cup along with structural distal femoral allograft, cut to resemble the number 7, and secured with 6.5-mm cancellous screws with washers. RESULTS: Overall, 7 hips failed, resulting in a Kaplan-Meier survivorship of 72% at 25 years of follow-up. In surviving patients, radiographs demonstrated components to be well fixed, and average Merle d'Aubigné score increased from 5 to 10 points. There were a subset of patients that failed early (median: 6.2 years), but the remaining patients demonstrated excellent clinical and radiographic results. CONCLUSIONS: The use of distal femoral allograft can be considered in young patients with type IIIA acetabular defects that could benefit from restoration of bone stock.

Mesenchymal stem cell allograft as a fusion adjunct in one- and two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a matched cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Live mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) allograft-containing allogeneic bone grafts have recently gained popularity and currently account for greater than 17% of all bone grafts and bone graft substitutes used in spinal surgery. Although the claim of cellular bone matrices containing osteogenic cells with osteoinductive properties is attractive, little is known about their clinical success when used in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to report on the radiographic fusion rates in one- and two-level instrumented ACDF using an MSC. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This was a retrospective review of prospectively matched cohort of patients with radiologic assessment of fusion as the primary end point. PATIENT SAMPLE: Two matched cohorts of adult patients who underwent ACDF with MSC or standard allograft were included. OUTCOMES MEASURES: The outcome measures included radiographic and clinical evidence of healing at 1 year. METHODS: A consecutive series of 57 patients who underwent a one- or two-level instrumented ACDF procedure between 2010 and 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. All fusion constructs comprised an interbody allograft, an anterior plate, and Osteocel (NuVasive, San Diego, CA, USA). These patients were matched to a control group of 57 patients. RESULTS: Of the 57 cases in both cohorts, 29 (50.9%) were single-level, and 28 (49.1%) were two-level instrumented ACDFs. There were no significant differences in patient age (p=.71), gender, comorbidity burden (Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]: 1.95; 2.42, p=.71) or body mass index (p=.79). At the 1-year follow-up, 50 of 57 (87.7%) patients in the Osteocel cohort demonstrated a solid fusion compared with 54 of 57 (94.7%) in the control group (p=.19). Seven (12.3%) patients in the Osteocel cohort were reported as having a failed fusion at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first non-industry sponsored study to analyze a matched cohort assessing the 1-year arthrodesis rates associated with a nonstructural MSC allograft in one- and two-level ACDF procedures. Although not statistically significant, patients treated with MSC allografts demonstrated lower fusion rates compared with a matched non-MSC cohort.

Acetabular reconstruction with a reinforcement device and bone grafting in revision arthroplasty-a mean five years of follow-up.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of acetabular reconstruction using a reinforcement device (RD) in combination with bone grafting in Paprosky type 2 and 3 acetabular bone defects. METHODS: Morselised bone grafts were used to fill cavitary defects and a structural graft placed in the superior part of the acetabulum in cases of cranial bone defects, with a proximally fixed RD (Protetim, Hódmezovásárhely, Hungary) implanted in all cases. Construct stability, device positioning, hip centre of rotation and medial acetabular wall thickness were evaluated radiologically. Survival rates were estimated with aseptic loosening and revision for any reason as endpoints. RESULTS: The 28 patients (29 hips) were followed for 4.8 ± 2.7 years (range, 2-10.4 years). Hip centre of rotation was lowered in all cases, with no significant differences between the mean values obtained post-operatively and at the last follow-up. Medial acetabular wall thickness and RD abduction angle were maintained up to the last evaluation. Bone grafts integrated by two years post-operatively in the majority of cases. Kaplan-Meier survival rates were 85.2 % and 82.1 % for the two endpoints at ten years. CONCLUSIONS: Acetabular reconstruction using a proximally fixed RD in combination with bone grafting offered good mid-term results in the treatment of acetabular bone defects. In cases of severe bone loss, the structural allograft allowed placement of the RD with ischial contact, rendering survival rates similar to RDs with both iliac and ilioischial fixation. The technique was successful in restoring and maintaining medial acetabular bone stock and construct stability for up to ten years.