Download PDF
Osteologie 2013; 22(03): 173-178
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1630121
Osteologische Biomaterialien
Schattauer GmbH

Klinische Verwendung osteo logischer Biomaterialien

Clinical use of bone substitutes
C. Heiß
1   Klinik für Unfall-, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen – Marburg GmbH, Standort: Gießen
,
G. S. Maier
1   Klinik für Unfall-, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen – Marburg GmbH, Standort: Gießen
,
M. Gelinsky
2   Zentrum für Translationale Knochen-, Gelenk- und Weichgewebeforschung, Medizinische Fakultät und Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden
,
D. Hose
3   Medizinische Klinik V, Sektion Multiples Myelom, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg
,
R. Schnettler
1   Klinik für Unfall-, Hand- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen – Marburg GmbH, Standort: Gießen
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

eingereicht: 15 May 2013

angenommen: 18 June 2013

Publication Date:
30 January 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Im klinischen Alltag finden sich die unterschiedlichsten Fachdisziplinen der Traumatologie und operativen Orthopädie sowie der Mund-Kiefer-Gesichtschirurgie und Neurochirurgie täglich mit der Frage nach einer möglichst optimalen Deckung bzw. Auffüllung knöcherner Defekte konfrontiert. Trotz einer Fülle kommerziell verfügbarer Knochenersatzmaterialien, die sich derzeit auf dem Weltmarkt befinden, ist die autologe Knochentransplantation (Spongiosaplastik) weiterhin der uneingeschränkte Goldstandard, doch die begrenzte Verfügbarkeit und Entnahmemorbidität/-komplikationen limitieren die klinische Anwendung. Ziel dieser Übersichtsarbeit ist es, die alternativen Ersatzmöglichkeiten in Form von Knochen - ersatzmaterialien für knöcherne Defekte und ihre klinische Anwendung aufzuzeigen.

Summary

Optimal bone void filling is a difficult task for surgeons from different disciplines like traumatology, orthopaedics, neurosurgery and oral and maxillofacial surgery. A variety of bone substitutes are commercially available, but autologous bone grafting is still considered to be the gold standard for restoring bone defects. Its restricted availability and morbidity from harvesting generated the need for other materials to substitute autologous bone graft. This work wants to give an overview of the clinical use of currently available bone graft substitutes.

Schlüsselwörter

Knochenersatzmaterialien - Spongiosaplastik - Knochenersatzstoffe

Keywords

Bone substitutes - bone grafts - bone-void fillers
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Beier JP, Boos AM, Kamolz L. et al. [Skin tissue engineering - from split skin to engineered skin grafts?]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2010; 42 (6) 342-353.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Schieker M, Mutschler W. [Bridging posttraumatic bony defects. Established and new methods]. Unfallchirurg 2006; 109 (9) 715-732.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Calori GM, Mazza E, Colombo M, Ripamonti C. The use of bone-graft substitutes in large bone defects: any specific needs?. Injury 2011; 42 (Suppl 2) S56-S63.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Giannoudis PV, Dinopoulos H, Tsiridis E. Bone substitutes: an update. Injury 2005; 36 (Suppl 3) S20-S27.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Schieker M, Heiss C, Mutschler W. [Bone substitutes]. Unfallchirurg 2008; 111 (8) 613-619.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 LeGeros RZ. Properties of osteoconductive biomaterials: calcium phosphates. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; 395: 81-98.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Van der Stok J, Van Lieshout EM, El-Massoudi Y. et al. Bone substitutes in the Netherlands - a systematic literature review. Acta Biomater 2011; 7 (2) 739-750.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Heinemann S, Gelinsky M, Worch H, Hanke T. [Resorbable bone substitution materials: An overview of commercially available materials and new approaches in the field of composites]. Orthopade 2011; 40 (9) 761-773.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mahato NK. Characterization of cortico-cancellous bone along the iliac crest: focus on graft harvesting. Surg Radiol Anat 2011; 33 (5) 433-437.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Schmidt-Rohlfing B, Tzioupis C, Menzel CL, Pape HC. [Tissue engineering of bone tissue. Principles and clinical applications]. Unfallchirurg 2009; 112 (9) 785-794 quiz 795.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Goulet JA, Senunas LE, DeSilva GL, Greenfield ML. Autogenous iliac crest bone graft. Complications and functional assessment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997; 339: 76-81.
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Rentsch C, Rentsch B, Scharnweber D. et al. [Bone substitute. Transplants and replacement materials--an update]. Unfallchirurg 2012; 115 (10) 938-949.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bae HW, Zhao L, Kanim LE. et al. Intervariability and intravariability of bone morphogenetic proteins in commercially available demineralized bone matrix products. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006; 31 (12) 1299-1306 discussion 1307-1308.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Drosos GI, Kazakos KI, Kouzoumpasis P, Verettas DA. Safety and efficacy of commercially available demineralised bone matrix preparations: a critical review of clinical studies. Injury 2007; 38 (Suppl 4) S13-S21.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lewandrowski KU, Gresser JD, Wise DL, Trantol DJ. Bioresorbable bone graft substitutes of different osteoconductivities: a histologic evaluation of osteointegration of poly(propylene glycol-co-fumaric acid)-based cement implants in rats. Biomaterials 2000; 21 (8) 757-764.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 De Long Jr WG, Einhorn TA, Koval K. et al. Bone grafts and bone graft substitutes in orthopaedic trauma surgery. A critical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (3) 649-658.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bohner M. Physical and chemical aspects of calcium phosphates used in spinal surgery. Eur Spine J 2001; 10 (Suppl 2) S114-S121.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pflugmacher R, Bornemann R, Koch EMW. Verfahren zur Behandlung vertebraler Frakturen. Ein Überblick unterschiedlicher Systeme und Philosophien zur Wirbelkörper-Augmentation mit Zement. Osteologie 2012; 21 (3) 151-162.
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Blokhuis TJ, Termaat MF, den Boer FC. et al. Properties of calcium phosphate ceramics in relation to their in vivo behavior. J Trauma 2000; 48 (1) 179-186.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Daculsi G, Passuti N. Effect of the macroporosity for osseous substitution of calcium phosphate ceramics. Biomaterials 1990; 11: 86-87.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Driskell TD, O'Hara MJ, Sheets Jr HD. et al. Development of ceramic and ceramic composite devices for maxillofacial applications. J Biomed Mater Res 1972; 6 (1) 345-361.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Blom AW, Wylde V, Livesey C. et al. Impaction bone grafting of the acetabulum at hip revision using a mix of bone chips and a biphasic porous ceramic bone graft substitute. Acta Orthop 2009; 80 (2) 150-154.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 McNamara I, Deshpande S, Porteous M. Impaction grafting of the acetabulum with a mixture of frozen, ground irradiated bone graft and porous synthetic bone substitute (Apapore 60). J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (5) 617-623.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Peters CL, Hines JL, Bachus KN. et al. Biological effects of calcium sulfate as a bone graft substitute in ovine metaphyseal defects. J Biomed Mater Res A 2006; 76 (3) 456-462.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Beuerlein MJ, McKee MD. Calcium sulfates: what is the evidence?. J Orthop Trauma 2010; 24 (Suppl 1) S46-S51.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Urban RM, Turner TM, Hall DJ. et al. Effects of altered crystalline structure and increased initial compressive strength of calcium sulfate bone graft substitute pellets on new bone formation. Orthopedics 2004; 27 (1 Suppl) S113-S118.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Yu B, Han K, Ma H. et al. Treatment of tibial plateau fractures with high strength injectable calcium sulphate. Int Orthop 2009; 33 (4) 1127-1133.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Schnurer SM, Gopp U, Kuhn KD, Breusch SJ. [Bone substitutes]. Orthopade 2003; 32 (1) 2-10.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Mistry S, Kundu D, Datta S, Basu D. Comparison of bioactive glass coated and hydroxyapatite coated titanium dental implants in the human jaw bone. Aust Dent J 2011; 56 (1) 68-75.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Peltola M, Kinnunen I, Aitasalo K. Reconstruction of orbital wall defects with bioactive glass plates. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66 (4) 639-646.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Iwashita Y, Yamamuro T, Kasai R. et al. Osteoconduction of bioceramics in normal and osteopenic rats: comparison between bioactive and bioinert ceramics. J Appl Biomater 1992; 3 (4) 259-268.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ohsawa K, Neo M, Okamoto T. et al. In vivo absorption of porous apatite- and wollastonite-containing glass-ceramic. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2004; 15 (8) 859-864.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Dinopoulos H, Dimitriou R, Giannoudis PV. Bone graft substitutes: What are the options?. Surgeon 2012; 10 (4) 230-239.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Gelinsky M, Welzel PB, Simon P. et al. Porous three dimensional scaffolds made of mineralised collagen: preparation and properties of a biomimetic nanocomposite material for tissue engineering of bone. Chem Eng J 2008; 137: 84-96.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Scholz M, Schleicher P, Sewing A. et al. Cyclic-RGD is as effective as BMP-2 in anterior interbody fusion of the sheep cervical spine. Spine 2013; 38: E59-E65.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Giannoudis PV, Einhorn TA. Bone morphogenetic proteins in musculoskeletal medicine. Injury 2009; 40 (Suppl 3) S1-S3.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Axelrad TW, Einhorn TA. Bone morphogenetic proteins in orthopaedic surgery. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 2009; 20 (5-6) 481-488.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar