Small joint arthrodesis technique using a dowel bone graft in a rabbit model


Autoři: Ki-Tae Na aff001;  Yoon-Min Lee aff002;  Jae-Hoon Choi aff002;  Seok-Whan Song aff002
Působiště autorů: Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Suwon Nanoori Hospital, Suwon, Korea aff001;  Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226996

Souhrn

The dowel bone graft fusion technique for the ankle is a well-known and useful method. However, clinical results of dowel bone graft for small joint fusion are unknown. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the effects of dowel bone graft technique for small joint arthrodesis in an in vivo arthrodesis of rabbit elbow model compared with the conventional arthrodesis technique (open, joint surface debridement, and internal fixation method). We assigned 28 young adult New Zealand white rabbits to one of two groups: Group 1, the conventional fusion technique group; Group 2, the dowel bone graft fusion technique group. We performed arthrodesis surgery in two different ways for each group. Eight weeks after the operation, specimens were harvested, radiographed, mechanically tested for torque to failure and stiffness, and evaluated for histology. Fusion rates were 77% (10/13) in Group 1 and 93% (13/14) in Group 2 (p = 0.326). Torque to failure showed a mean of 0.86 Nm in Group 1 and 0.77 Nm in Group 2 (p = 0.464). The mean value of stiffness was 0.11 Nm/deg in Group 1 and 0.11 Nm/deg in Group 2 (p = 0.832). In Group 2, histological examination showed residual cartilage absorption and inflammatory response in all cases. In this model, we have been unable to show a difference in either the union rate or strength of fusion between the two methods. However, the dowel bone graft technique is an easy and less invasive method and has some advantages over the conventional method.

Klíčová slova:

Cartilage – Histology – Chondrocytes – Rabbits – Skeletal joints – Stiffness – Torque


Zdroje

1. Brutus JP, Palmer AK, Mosher JF, Harley BJ, Loftus JB. Use of a headless compressive screw for distal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis in digits: clinical outcome and review of complications. The Journal of hand surgery. 2006;31(1):85–9. Epub 2006/01/31. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2005.09.009 16443110.

2. Mantovani G, Fukushima WY, Cho AB, Aita MA, Lino W Jr., Faria FN. Alternative to the distal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis: lateral approach and plate fixation. The Journal of hand surgery. 2008;33(1):31–4. Epub 2008/02/12. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2007.09.004 18261662.

3. Renfree KJ. Percutaneous in situ versus open arthrodesis of the distal interphalangeal joint. The Journal of hand surgery, European volume. 2015;40(4):379–83. Epub 2014/03/20. doi: 10.1177/1753193414527387 24643379.

4. Seitz WH Jr., Sellman DC, Scarcella JB, Froimson AI. Compression arthrodesis of the small joints of the hand. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 1994;(304):116–21. Epub 1994/07/01. 8020203.

5. Zavitsanos G, Watkins F, Britton E, Somia N, Gupta A, Kleinbert H. Distal Interphalangeal Joint Arthrodesis Using Intramedullary and Interosseous Fixation. Hand surgery: an international journal devoted to hand and upper limb surgery and related research: journal of the Asia-Pacific Federation of Societies for Surgery of the Hand. 1999;4(1):51–5. Epub 2000/11/23. doi: 10.1142/s0218810499000125 11089156.

6. Kocak E, Carruthers KH, Kobus RJ. Distal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis with the Herbert headless compression screw: outcomes and complications in 64 consecutively treated joints. Hand (New York, NY). 2011;6(1):56–9. Epub 2012/03/02. doi: 10.1007/s11552-010-9295-3 22379439; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3041886.

7. Stern PJ, Fulton DB. Distal interphalangeal joint arthrodesis: an analysis of complications. The Journal of hand surgery. 1992;17(6):1139–45. Epub 1992/11/01. doi: 10.1016/s0363-5023(09)91081-4 1430956.

8. Baciu CC. A simple technique for arthrodesis of the ankle. The Journal of bone and joint surgery British volume. 1986;68(2):266–7. Epub 1986/03/01. 3958013.

9. Stranks GJ, Cecil T, Jeffery IT. Anterior ankle arthrodesis with cross-screw fixation. A dowel graft method used in 20 cases. The Journal of bone and joint surgery British volume. 1994;76(6):943–6. Epub 1994/11/01. 7983124.

10. Withey CJ, Murphy AL, Horner R. Tarsometatarsal joint arthrodesis with trephine joint resection and dowel calcaneal bone graft. The Journal of foot and ankle surgery: official publication of the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. 2014;53(2):243–7. Epub 2014/01/07. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2013.10.011 24388600.

11. Breibart AS, Glat PM, Staffenberg DA, Casar RS, Rubinstein J, Grossman JA, et al. An experimental study of small-joint compression arthrodesis. Annals of plastic surgery. 1997;39(1):47–52. Epub 1997/07/01. doi: 10.1097/00000637-199707000-00008 9229092.

12. Belt EA, Maenpaa H, Lehto MU. Outcome of ankle arthrodesis performed by dowel technique in patients with rheumatic disease. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22(8):666–9. Epub 2001/08/31. doi: 10.1177/107110070102200809 11527029.

13. Karladani A, Digas G, Ekstrom L, Swanpalmer J, Styf J, Hansson T. Ankle arthrodesis using dowel bone graft and cancellous-bone screws: a mechanical study in cadavers. Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica. 2004;75(4):471–6. Epub 2004/09/17. doi: 10.1080/00016470410001268-1 15370593.

14. McGuire RA, Chen Z, Donahoe K. Dual fibular allograft dowel technique for sacroiliac joint arthrodesis. Evidence-based spine-care journal. 2012;3(3):21–8. Epub 2013/03/28. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1327806 23532182; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3592760.

15. Chano T, Ishizawa M, Matsumoto K, Morimoto S, Hukuda S, Okabe H. The identity of proliferating cells in bone tumors with cartilaginous components: evaluation by double-immunohistochemical staining using proliferating cell nuclear antigen and S-100 protein. European journal of histochemistry: EJH. 1995;39(1):21–30. Epub 1995/01/01. 7612954.

16. Li CL, Martinez V, He B, Lombet A, Perbal B. A role for CCN3 (NOV) in calcium signalling. Molecular pathology: MP. 2002;55(4):250–61. Epub 2002/07/31. doi: 10.1136/mp.55.4.250 12147716; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1187188.

17. Ushigome S, Takakuwa T, Shinagawa T, Takagi M, Kishimoto H, Mori N. Ultrastructure of cartilaginous tumors and S-100 protein in the tumors. With reference to the histogenesis of chondroblastoma, chondromyxoid fibroma and mesenchymal chondrosarcoma. Acta pathologica japonica. 1984;34(6):1285–300. Epub 1984/11/01. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1827.1984.tb00555.x 6524378.

18. Leonardi R, Villari L, Bernasconi G, Piacentini C, Baciliero U, Travali S. Cellular S-100 protein immunostaining in human dysfunctional temporomandibular joint discs. Archives of oral biology. 2000;45(5):411–8. Epub 2000/03/31. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9969(99)00144-2 10739862.

19. Wolff DA, Stevenson S, Goldberg VM. S-100 protein immunostaining identifies cells expressing a chondrocytic phenotype during articular cartilage repair. Journal of orthopaedic research: official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society. 1992;10(1):49–57. Epub 1992/01/01. doi: 10.1002/jor.1100100106 1370178.

20. Weiss AP, Dorfman HD. S-100 protein in human cartilage lesions. The Journal of bone and joint surgery American volume. 1986;68(4):521–6. Epub 1986/04/01. 3514624.

21. Mohr W, Kuhn C, Pelster B, Wessinghage D. S-100 protein in normal, osteoarthrotic, and arthritic cartilage. Rheumatology international. 1985;5(6):273–7. Epub 1985/01/01. doi: 10.1007/bf00541355 3880183.


Článok vyšiel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 12