Clinical study on repair of metacarpal bone defects using titanium alloy implantation and autologous bone grafting

Zheng,Yue; Wang,Jinliang; Chang,Bolun; Zhang,Li

doi:10.3892/etm.2020.9363

Clinical study on repair of metacarpal bone defects using titanium alloy implantation and autologous bone grafting

Authors:
- Yue Zheng
- Jinliang Wang
- Bolun Chang
- Li Zhang
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Orthopedics, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei 050051, P.R. China, Department of Orthopedics, Hebei Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shijiazhuang, Hebei 050011, P.R. China
Published online on: October 16, 2020 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2020.9363
Article Number: 233
Copyright: © Zheng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Due to various limitations in the use of autologous bone and allogeneic bone in the repair of bone defects, the use of synthetic bone graft substitute has become a hot topic in orthopedic surgery and repair medicine. A total of 53 patients treated for trauma‑induced metacarpal bone defects were recruited. These patients were divided into the TiAl₆V₄ titanium alloy implantation group (group A) and the autologous bone graft group (group B). The symptoms of patients in the two groups were closely observed and followed up. The operation time, time to bone fusion, post‑surgical pain [visual analog scale (VAS) scores], hand function recovery [total active flexion scale (TAFS) scores] and complications were compared between the two groups. Following surgery, none of the patients had necrosis of fingers or bone non‑union. The recovery was rated as excellent and good in up to 91.6% of patients, indicating high clinical efficacy. Compared with the use of autologous bone grafting as the gold standard (group B), there was no significant difference in the excellent and good recovery rate based on TAFS scores at 16 weeks after surgery (91.7 vs. 89.7%, P>0.05), and there was also no significant difference in the incidence of post‑operative complications (33.3 vs. 41.3%, P>0.05). The operation time (82.08±6.64 min), time to bone fusion (7.75±1.73 weeks) and VAS scores at 3 days after surgery were all significantly lower in group A than in group B (P<0.05). The values of group B were 104.69±8.63 min, 9.17±2.78 weeks and [5(5, 6)], respectively. However, the hospitalization cost (22,657.8±1,595.4Ұ) was significantly higher than that in group B (14,808.2±2,291.3Ұ; P<0.05). In conclusion, the use of titanium alloy implantation may avoid new injury to the donor site, reduce the operation time and post‑operative pain and accelerate bone fusion. Therefore, this method is worthy of popularization for defective bone reconstruction and recovery in the clinic.

View Figures

View References

1	WHO: Injuries and violence: The facts 2014. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2014.
2	Mauffrey C, Barlow BT and Smith W: Management of segmental bone defects. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 23:143–53. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
3	Lu H, Liu Y, Guo J, Wu H, Wang J and Wu G: Biomaterials with antibacterial and osteoinductive properties to repair infected bone defects. Int J Mol Sci. 17(334)2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
4	Güleç A, Özdemir A, Durgut F, Yildirim A and Acar MA: Comparison of innervated digital artery perforator flap versus homodigital reverse flow flap techniques for fingertip reconstruction. J Hand Surg Am. 44:801.e1–801.e6. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
5	García-Gareta E, Coathup MJ and Blunn GW: Osteoinduction of bone grafting materials for bone repair and regeneration. Bone. 81:112–121. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
6	Panattoni JB, De Ona IR and Ahmed MM: Reconstruction of fingertip injuries: Surgical tips and avoiding complications. J Hand Surg Am. 40:1016–1024. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
7	Germann G, Rudolf KD, Levin SL and Hrabowski M: Fingertip and thumb tip wounds: Changing algorithms for sensation, aesthetics, and function. J Hand Surg Am. 42:274–284. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
8	Özcanlı H, Bektaş G, Cavit A, Duymaz A and Coşkunfırat OK: Reconstruction of fingertip defects with digital artery perforator flap. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 49:18–22. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
9	Griffin KS, Davis KM, McKinley TO, Anglen JO, Chu TMG, Boerckel JD and Kacena MA: Evolution of bone grafting: Bone grafts and tissue engineering strategies for vascularized bone regeneration. Clinic Rev Bone Miner Metab. 13:232–244. 2015.
10	Bhumiratana S, Bernhard JC, Alfi DM, Yeager K, Eton RE, Bova J, Shah F, Gimble JM, Lopez MJ, Eisig SB and Vunjak-Novakovic G: Tissue-engineered autologous grafts for facial bone reconstruction. Sci Transl Med. 8:343ra83. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
11	Tang D, Tare RS, Yang LY, Williams DF, Ou KL and Oreffo RO: Biofabrication of bone tissue: Approaches, challenges and translation for bone regeneration. Biomaterials. 83:363–382. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
12	Evans CH and Huard J: Gene therapy approaches to regenerating the musculoskeletal system. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 11:234–242. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
13	García JR, Clark AY and García AJ: Integrin-specific hydrogels functionalized with VEGF for vascularization and bone regeneration of critical-size bone defects. J Biomed Mater Res A. 104:889–900. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
14	Martino MM, Briquez PS, Maruyama K and Hubbell JA: Extracellular matrix-inspired growth factor delivery systems for bone regeneration. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 94:41–52. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
15	Egol KA, Nauth A, Lee M, Pape HC, Watson JT and Borrelli J Jr: Bone grafting: Sourcing, timing, strategies, and alternatives. J Orthop Trauma. 29 (Suppl 12):S10–S14. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
16	A.M.J.J.o.S.M. Ahmad Oryan, D. Studies, An Overview on Bone Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine: Current Challenges, Future Directions and Strategies.
17	Campana V, Milano G, Pagano E, Barba M, Cicione C, Salonna G, Lattanzi W and Logroscino G: Bone substitutes in orthopaedic surgery: From basic science to clinical practice. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 25:2445–2461. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
18	Gruskay JA, Basques BA, Bohl DD, Webb ML and Grauer JN: Short-term adverse events, length of stay, and readmission after iliac crest bone graft for spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 39:1718–1724. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
19	Heneghan HM and McCabe JP: Use of autologous bone graft in anterior cervical decompression: Morbidity & quality of life analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 10(158)2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
20	Hernigou P: Bone transplantation and tissue engineering, part III: Allografts, bone grafting and bone banking in the twentieth century. Int Orthop. 39:577–587. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
21	Agarwal R and García AJ: Biomaterial strategies for engineering implants for enhanced osseointegration and bone repair. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 94:53–62. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
22	Beuriat PA, Szathmari A, Grassiot B, Di Rocco F and Mottolese C: Why a hydroxyapatite cranioplasty can be used to repair a cranial bone defect in children: Experience of 19 cases. Neurochirurgie. 62:251–257. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar : (In French).
23	Lindsey RW, Gugala Z, Milne E, Sun M, Gannon FH and Latta LL: The efficacy of cylindrical titanium mesh cage for the reconstruction of a critical-size canine segmental femoral diaphyseal defect. J Orthop Res. 24:1438–1453. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
24	Ryan GE, Pandit AS and Apatsidis DP: Porous titanium scaffolds fabricated using a rapid prototyping and powder metallurgy technique. Biomaterials. 29:3625–3635. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
25	Lin SY, Huang PJ, Huang HT, Chen CH, Cheng YM and Fu YC: An alternative technique for the management of phalangeal enchondromas with pathologic fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 38:104–109. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
26	Soni A, Gulati A, Bassi JL, Singh D and Saini UC: Outcome of closed ipsilateral metacarpal fractures treated with mini fragment plates and screws: A prospective study. Comparative Study. 13:29–33. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
27	Hsia RY, Nath JB and Baker LC: California emergency department visit rates for medical conditions increased while visit rates for injuries fell, 2005-11. Health Aff (Millwood). 34:621–626. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
28	De Putter CE, van Beeck EF, Polinder S, Panneman MJ, Burdorf A, Hovius SE and Selles RW: Healthcare costs and productivity costs of hand and wrist injuries by external cause: A population-based study in working-age adults in the period 2008-2012. Injury. 47:1478–1482. 2017.
29	Dias JJ and Garcia-Elias M: Hand injury costs. Injury. 37:1071–1077. 2006.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
30	Grivna M, Eid HO and Abu-Zidan FM: Epidemiology of isolated hand injuries in the United Arab Emirates. World J Orthop. 7:570–776. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
31	Chau N, Gauchard GC, Siegfried C, Benamghar L, Dangelzer JL, Français M, Jacquin R, Sourdot A, Perrin PP and Mur JM: Relationships of job, age, and life conditions with the causes and severity of occupational injuries in construction workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 77:60–66. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
32	Scheker LR and Becker GW: Distal finger replantation. J Hand Surg Am. 36:521–528. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
33	Wang W and Yeung KWK: Bone grafts and biomaterials substitutes for bone defect repair: A review. Bioact Mater. 2:224–247. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
34	Hung YW, Ko WS, Liu WH, Chow CS, Kwok YY, Wong CW, Tse WL and Ho PC: Local review of treatment of hand enchondroma (artificial bone substitute versus autologous bone graft) in a tertiary referral centre: 13 years' experience. Hong Kong Med J. 21:217–223. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
35	Heinl P, Rottmair A, Koerner C and Singer RF: Cellular Titanium by Selective Electron Beam Melting. Adv Eng Mater. 9:360–364. 2010.
36	Saulacic N, Bosshardt DD, Bornstein MM, Berner S and Buser D: Bone apposition to a titanium-zirconium alloy implant, as compared to two other titanium-containing implants. Eur Cell Mater. 23:273–288. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
37	Liodaki E, Kraemer R, Mailaender P and Stang F: The use of bone graft substitute in hand surgery: A prospective observational study. Medicine (Baltimore). 95(e3631)2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar