PDF herunterladen
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1997; 10(02): 79-87
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632575
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

A Comparison of Autogenous Cortico-Cancellous Bone Graft Obtained from the Wing of the Ilium with an Acetabular Reamer to Autogenous Cancellous Bone Graft Obtained from the Proximal Humerus in Dogs

J. T. Stallings
1   From the Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Florida, USA
,
R. B. Parker
1   From the Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Florida, USA
,
D. D. Lewis
1   From the Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Florida, USA
,
Th. J. Wronski
2   Department of Physiological Sciences in conjunction with the laboratory and staff of Gary Miller, Department of Orthopaedics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
,
J. Shiroma
1   From the Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Florida, USA
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Received for publication 14. Mai 1996

Publikationsdatum:
22. Februar 2018 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Summary

The incorporation of autogenous cortico-cancellous bone graft (CCBG) harvested from the wing of ilium using a powered acetabular reamer and autogenous cancellous bone graft (CBG), harvested from the proximal humerus by curettage, were compared in four young adult mixed breed female dogs. Five milliliters of CCBG or CBG were placed in bilateral, stable, 3.0 cm proximal diaphyseal ulnar defects. Humeral donor sites, and subsequent assignment of graft types of ulnar recipient sites, were alternated between dogs. Craniocaudal and lateral view radiographs were obtained immediately (day 0) and on days 16 and 35 after the operation. Photodensitometric and bone graft area measurements were made from these radiographs and the specific radiographic characteristics of the bone grafts were described at each time interval. Each dog received a series of intravenous fluorochrome label injections on days 23, 28 and 33. The dogs were humanely euthanatized on day 35. The bone graft recipient sites were harvested, processed and the descriptive histological and histomorphometric parameters were evaluated.

A statistically significant difference in photodensitometric measurements was not seen between the CCBG and CBG. However, there was a statistically significant increase in the graft area of the CCBG from day 0-16. Mineral apposition rate was significantly greater, (P = 0.005) for the CCBG (mean = 4.8) than for the CBG (mean = 3.7), suggesting that the CCBG appears to be in an earlier more osteogenic phase of incorporation than the CBG. There was a trend which suggested that the percentage of trabecular bone volume was greater (P = 0.11) for the CBG (mean = 43.0) than for the CCBG (mean = 32.0). Other significant differences were not found, with respect to the other morphometric parameters measured. The descriptive histology and subjective radiographic evaluation were the most effective ways of readily distinguishing between the two types of bone graft and they demonstrated that the CBG had incorporated more completely than the CCBG by day 35.

Presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons, Chicago, Illinois 1995 and at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Veterinary Orthopaedic Society, Telluride, Colorado 1996

Keywords

Reamed cortico-cancellous bone graft - ilium
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Alexander JW. Use of a combination of cortical bone allografts and cancellous bone autographs to replace massive bone loss in fresh fractures and selected nonunions. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1983; 19: 671
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bacher JD, Schmidt RE. Effects of autogenous cancellous bone on healing of homogenous cortical bone grafts. J Small Anim Pract 1980; 21: 235-24.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bassett CA. Clinical implications of cell function in bone grafting. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1972; 87: 49-59.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Burchardt H. The biology of bone graft repair. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1983; 174: 28-42.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Burchardt H. Biology of bone transplantation. Orthop Clin North Am 1987; 18: 187-96.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 DeCamp CE, Hauptman J, Knowlen G, Reindel JF. Periosteum and the healing of partial ulnar ostectomy in radius curvus of dogs. Vet Surg 1986; 15: 185-90.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Dick W, Regazzoni P, Gerber B. Technique for harvesting autogenic bone paste. In: Bone Transplantation. Aebi M, Regazzoni P. eds. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1989: 246-7.
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Fox SM. Cancellous bone grafting in the dog: an overview. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1984; 20: 840-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Glennon JC, Flanders JA, Beck KA. et al. The effect of long-term bone plate application for fixation of radial fractures in dogs. Vet Surg 1994; 23: 40-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Graham GP, Dent CM, Jones DG. A quick method of taking a bone graft. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1991; 73-B: 179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gray JC, Elves MW. Donor cell's contribution to osteogenesis in experimental/cancellous bone grafts. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1982; 163: 261-71.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Green SA, Dlabal TA. The open bone graft for septic nonunion. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1983; 180: 117-24.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Harris WH, Jackson RH, Jowsey J. The in vivo distribution of tetracyclines in canine bone. J Bone Joint Surg 1962; 44-A: 1308-20.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Heiple KG, Goldberg VM, Powell AE. et al. Biology of cancellous bone grafts. Orthop Clin North Am 1987; 18: 179-85.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hulse DA. Pathophysiology of autologous cancellous bone grafts. Comp Cont Educ Pract Vet 1980; 2: 136-43.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Jaworski FG. Bone histomorphometry: outline of theory and practice. In: Skeletal Research: An Experimental Approach, Vol 2. Kunin AS, Sim mons DJ. eds. San Francisco: Academic Press; 1983: 238-76.
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Johnson AL. Principles of bone grafting. Sem Vet Med Surg (Small Anim) 1991; 6 (01) 90-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Johnson KA. Cancellous bone graft collection from the tibia in dogs. Vet Surg 1986; 15: 334-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Key JA. The effect of a local calcium depot on osteogenesis and healing of fractures. JBJS [Am] 1934; 16: 176-84.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Martinez SA, Probst CW, Hauptman JG, Weisbrode SE. Effects of a fixed compression load on the osteogenic effect of autogenous cancellous bone grafts in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1992; 12: 2381-5.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Nilsson OS, Urist MR, Schmalztriede TP, Fineman GA. Bone repair induced by bone morphogenic protein in ulnar defects in dogs. J Bone Joint Surg 1986; 68 B: 635-42.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Nunamaker DM, Rhinelander FW. Bone grafting. In: Small Animal Orthopedics. Newton CD, Nunamaker DM. eds. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1985: 453-9.
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Olstlere SJ, Gold RH. Osteoporosis and bone density measurement methods. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1991; 271: 149-63.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Parker RB. Bone grafting in small animal surgery. Waltham Focus 1995; 5 (02) 9-14.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Penwick RC, Mosier DA, Clark DM. Healing of canine autogenous cancellous bone graft donor sites. Vet Surg 1991; 20: 229-34.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Piermattei DL. An Atlas of Surgical Approaches to the Bones of the Dog and Cat. 3rd ed.. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1993: 186-7.
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Ray RD. Vascularization of bone grafts and implants. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1972; 87: 43-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Ray RD, Sabet TY. Bone grafts: cellular survival vs. induction. An experimental study in mice. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1963; 45 A: 337-44.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Reddi AH, Wientroub S, Muthukumaran N. Biologic principles of bone induction. Orthop Clin North Am 1987; 18: 207-12.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sampath TK, Reddi AH. Importance of geometry of the extracellular matrix in endochondral bone differentiation. J Cell Biol 1984; 98: 2192-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Shena CJ. The procurement of cancellous bone for grafting in small animal orthopedic surgery: a review of instrumentation, technique, and pathophysiology. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1983; 19: 695-704.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Stevenson S. Bone grafting. In: Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. Slatter DH. ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1985. 2 2035-48.
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Syftestad G, Urist MR. Degradation of bone matrix morphogenetic activity by pulverization. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1979; 141: 281-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Tonna EA, Singh IJ, Sandhu HS. Non-radioactive tracer techniques for calcified tissues. In: Methods of Calcified Tissue Preparation. Dickerson GR. ed. New York: Elsevier; 1984: 333-67.
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Trevor PB, Smith MM, Stevenson S, Carrig CB. Evaluation of the proximal portion of the femur as an autogenous cancellous bone donor site in dogs. Am J Vet Res 1992; 19: 1599-603.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Turnlund J, Margen S. Use of a spectrophotometer for radiographic photodensitometry of bone. Calcif Tissue Int 1979; 28: 103-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Walter MC, Lenehan TM, Smith GK. et al. Treatment of severely comminuted diaphyseal fractures in the dog, using standard bone plates and autogenous cancellous bone graft to span fracture gaps: 11 cases (1979-1983). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1986; 4: 457-62.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Weigel JP. Bone grafting. In: Disease Mechanisms in Small Animal Surgery 2nd ed.. Bojrab MJ. ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1993: 678-84.
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Wilson JW, Rhinelander FW, Stewart CL. Vascularization of cancellous chip bone grafts. Am J Vet Res 1985; 8: 1691-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Wronski TJ, Yen CF, Qi H, Dann LM. Parathyroid hormone is more effective than estrogen or bisphosphonates for restoration of lost bone mass in ovariectomized rats. Endocrinology 1993; 132 (02) 823-31.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar