Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2005; 18(03): 157-168
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632947
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Evaluation of healing in feline femoral defects filled with cancellous autograft, cancellous allograft or Bioglass

H. C. Dorea
1   Departments of Clinical Sciences
,
R. M. McLaughlin
1   Departments of Clinical Sciences
,
H. D. Cantwell
1   Departments of Clinical Sciences
,
R. Read
,
L. Armbrust
3   Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA
,
R. Pool
4   Department of Veterinary Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station Texas, USA
,
J. K. Roush
3   Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA
,
C. Boyle
5   Basic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 07 June 2004

Accepted 14 January 2005

Publication Date:
22 February 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Cancellous bone grafting is a widely accepted technique in human and veterinary orthopaedic surgery. However, the use of autogenous bone graft is limited by the additional surgical time required to harvest the graft, the morbidity associated with the donor site, and the limited availability of cancellous bone, especially in feline patients. Various allografts and bone graft substitutes are available commercially but have not been fully evaluated for efficacy in the cat. The purpose of this study was to compare the incorporation of autogenous and allogenous cancellous bone graft and Bioglass®, a synthetic bone graft substitute, in femoral defects in cats. Four (4.0 mm diameter) defects were created in the lateral diaphyseal cortex of the left femur with an orthopaedic drill. In each femur, one of the cortical defects was filled with autogenous cancellous graft (harvested from the tibia), one was filled with allogenic cancellous graft, and one was filled with Bioglass. The fourth defect remained unfilled. Graft incorporation within the femoral defects was evaluated by radiographic evaluation every two weeks. Six weeks after the grafting procedure, the cats were euthanatized and high detailed radiography, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), histopathology and histomorphometry of the defects were performed. Satisfactory bone healing was observed within all of the defects.

Keywords

Bone grafts - cancellous autograft - cancellous allograft - Bioglass® - feline
 

  • References

  • 1 Alexander JW. Bone grafting. Vet Clin of North Am: Small Anim Pract 1987; 17 (4) 811-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Alexander JW. Bone grafting. In: Leonard's Orthopaedic Surgery of the Dog and Cat. WB Saunders Company: 1985: 43-8.
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Bauer TW, Muschler GF. Bone graftmaterials-an overview of the basic science. Clin Orthop Rel Res 2000; 371: 10-27.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bolander ME, Balian G. The use of demineralized bone matrix in the repair of segmental defects. J Bone Joint Surg 1986; 68-A (8) 1264-74.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bonfiglio M, Jeter WS. Immunological responses to bone. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1972; 87: 19-27.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Braitman LE. Confidence intervals assess both clinical significance and statistical significance. Annals of Internal Medicine 1991; 114 (6) 515-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Brinker WO, Piermattei DL, Flo GL. Bone grafting. In: Small Animal Orthopaedics and Fracture Repair (3rd ed). WB Saunders Company; 1997: 147-53.
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Burchardt H. The biology of bone graft repair. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1983; 174: 28-42.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dalkyz M, Özcan A, Yapar M. et al. Evaluation of the effects of different biomaterials on bone defects. Implant Dent 2000; 9: 226-35.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Damien CJ, Parsons JR. Bone graft and bone graft substitutes: a review of current technology and applications. JAppl Biomater 1991; 2: 187-208.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 De Forge D.H. Evaluation of Bioglass® / Perioglass™ (Consil™) synthetic bone graft particulate inthedogandcat. J Vet Dent 1997; 14 (4) 141-5.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Elkins AD, Jones LP. The effects of plaster of Paris and autogenous cancellous bone on the healing of cortical defects in the femurs of dogs. Vet Surg 1988; 17 (2) 71-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Elves MW, Pratt LM. The pattern of new bone formation in isografts of bone. Acta Orthop Scand 1975; 46: 549-60.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Fitch R. et al. Bone autografts and allografts in dogs. Comp Vet Cont Ed 1997; 19 (5) 558-75.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fleming Jr JE, Cornell CN, Muschler GF. Bone cells and matrices in orthopaedic tissue engineering. Orthop ClinNorth Am 2000; 31 (3) 357-74.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Fox SM. Cancellous bone grafting in the dog: an overview. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1984; 20: 840-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gaisser DM, Katta SA, Greenspan DC. Nova-Bone: mechanisms of osteostimulation. Unpublished data: ongoing study.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Griffon DJ. Evaluation of Osteoproductive Biomaterials, Academic Dissertation. 2002
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Griffon DJ, McLaughlin RM, Hoskinson JJ. Effects of a bone-inducing agent derived from a cultured human osteosarcoma cell line after orthotopic and heterotopic implantation in the dog. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1996; 9: 22-8.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hasterlik RJ, Finkel AJ. Diseases of bone and joints associated with intoxication by radioactive substances, principally radium. Med Clin North Am 1965; 49: 285-95.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hopp SG, Dahners LE, Gilbert JA. A study of the mechanical strength of long bone defects treated with various bone autograft substitutes: an experimental investigation in the rabbit. J Orthop Res 1989; 7: 579-84.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Johnson KA. Cancellous bone graft collection from the tibia in dogs. Vet Surg 1986; (15) 4: 334-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kerwin SC, Lewis DD, Elkins AD. et al. Deep-frozen allogenic cancellous bone grafts in 10 dogs: a case series. Vet Surg 1996; 25: 18-28.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ladd AL, Pliam NB. Use of bone graft substitutes in distal radius fractures. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 1999; 7: 279-90.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 MacNeill SR, Cobb CM, Rapley JW. et al. In vivo comparison of synthetic osseous graft materials. A preliminary study J Clin Periodontol 1999; 26: 239-45.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 McLaughlin RM, Roush JK. Autogenous cancellous and cortico-cancellous bone grafting. Vet Med 1998; 93 (12) 1071-4.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Morgan JP, Leighton RL. Radiographic appearance of fracture healing. In: Radiology of Small Animal Fracture Management 1st edition. WB Saunders Company 1995; 34-42.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Oonishi H, Kushitani S, Yasukawa E. et al. Particulate Bioglass compared with hydroxyapatite as a bone graft substitute. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1997; 334: 316-25.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Pool RR, Morgan JP, Parks NJ. et al. Comparative pathogenesis of radium-induced intracortical bone lesions in humans and beagles. Health Physics 1983; 44 (1) 155-77.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ross MH, Romrell LJ, Kaye GI. Bone. In: Histology: a text and atlas 3RD edition. Williams & Wilking; 1995: 150-87.
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Sauk JJ, Van Kampen CL. Use of a phosphoryn-Ca+2 -collagen composition that mimics a mineralization front in unicortical defects in long bones. J Biomed Materials Res 1991; 25: 609-20.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Shapoff CA, Alexander DC, Clark AE. Clinical use of abioactive glass particulate in the treatment of human osseous defects. Comp Cont Ed Dentistry 1997; 18 (4) 352-63.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Sinibaldi KR. Evaluation of full cortical allografts in 25 dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1989; 194 (11) 1570-7.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Stallings JT, Parker RB, Lewis DD. et al. 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. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1997; 10: 79-87.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Trevor PB, Stevenson S, Carrig CB. et al. Evaluation of biocompatible osteoconductive polymer as an orthopaedic implant in dogs. JAmVet Med Assoc 1992; 200 (11) 1651-60.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Vaccaro AR. The role of the osteoinductive scaffold in synthetic bone graft. Orthopaedics 2002; 25 (5 supp) S571-78.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Wheeler DL, Eschbach EJ, Hoellrich RG. et al. Assessment of resorbable bioactive material for grafting of critical-size cancellous defects. J Orthop Res 2000; 18 (1) 140-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Wilson J, Yu LT, Beale BS. Bone augmentation using Bioglass particulate in dogs: Pilot study. Bioceramics 1999; 5: 139-46.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Wilson JW, Rhinelander FW, Stewart CL. Vascularization of cancellous chip bone. Am J Vet Res 1985; 46 (8) 1691-99.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar