Open Access, Peer-reviewed
pISSN 1226-2102
eISSN 2005-8918
    J Korean Orthop Assoc. 2007 Aug;42(4):545-552. Korean.
    Published online Aug 31, 2007.
    https://doi.org/10.4055/jkoa.2007.42.4.545
    Copyright © 2007 The Korean Orthopaedic Association
    Original Article

    A Comparative Experimental Study of Allograft and Porous Hydroxyapatite as Bone Substitutes

    Changju Hwang, M.D.,* Jung-Yun Bae, M.D., Ki Hyoung Koo, M.D., Jae Hyup Lee, M.D., Jin-Sup Yeom, M.D., Bong-Soon Chang, M.D., and Choon-Ki Lee, M.D.
      • *Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
      • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
    • Address reprint requests to Bong-Soon Chang, M.D. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 28, Yeongeon-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea. Tel: +82.2-2072-3864, Fax: +82.2-764-2718, Email: bschang@snu.ac.kr

    Abstract

    Purpose

    An experimental animal study was performed to compare the bone fusion capacity of an allograft and porous hydroxyapatite.

    Materials and Methods

    Three milliliters of allograft or porous hydroxyapatite particles were inserted between the 4th and 5th lumbar transverse processes of New Zealand white rabbits weighing 3-3.5 kg. The total number of rabbits was 30, which were divided randomly into 2 groups. The bone formation and fusion capacity were evaluated 12 weeks after surgery through the gross findings and manual palpation, as well as radiological, biomechanical, and histological studies. Six rabbits in the allograft group died during breeding but the autopsy finding did not show any evidence suggesting an infection or graft rejection. The allograft was harvested from the iliac crest of the rabbits of the same species aseptically and was preserved at -80℃ for at least 7 days before implantation.

    Results

    The fusion rates were 55.6% (5/9) and 66.7% (10/15) in the allograft and porous hydroxyapatite groups, respectively. The mean values of the tensile strengths were 140.7 N in the allograft group and 189.6 N in the porous hydroxyapatite group. Histological analysis of 2 specimens from each group revealed theporous hydroxyapatite group to show a slightly better osteoconduction capacity.

    Conclusion

    The porous hydroxyapatite group showed better bony union capacity even though there was no significant difference between the 2 groups.

    Keywords
    Allograft; Porous hydroxyapatite; Bone fusion

    Figures

    Fig. 1
    Biomechanical test using the Universal Material Test Machine.

    Fig. 2
    Serial posteroanterior radiographs. In both groups, implanted allograft and hydroxyapatite granules showed marginal blurring at 6 weeks, however, the radioopacities of the centers of the granules was sustained for up to 12 weeks.

    Fig. 3
    Light microscopic findings of the fusion masses in the allograft group (H&E stain, ×100, decalcified). (A) Case 1. The allograft was transformed to mature bone including the osteoid formation with osteoblastic rim, newly formed bone marrow and intervening fibrous tissue. (B) Case 2. Newly formed bone and fibrous tissue are intermingled.

    Fig. 4
    Light microscopic findings of the fusion masses in the porous HA group (H&E stain, ×100, decalcified). (A) Case 1. Remodeling of new bone containing osteoid, bone marrow, and the surrounding new vessels can be observed within the pores. (B) Case 2. It shows a mixture of new vessels, osteoid, and bone marrow within the pore structure along the remodeled bone suggesting excellent osteoconduction.

    Tables

    Table 1
    Summary of the Results

    References

      1. Bauer TW, Muschler GF. Bone graft materials. An overview of the basic science. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000;371:10–27.
      1. Betz RR. Limitations of autograft and allograft: new synthetic solutions. Orthopedics 2002;25 Suppl 5:S561–S570.
      1. Chang BS, Hong KS, Yeom JS, et al. Effects of pore size on osteoconduction at the porous hydroxyapatite. J Korean Orthop Assoc 1999;34:37–44.
      1. Chang BS, Lee CK, Hong KS, et al. Osteoconduction at porous hydroxyapatite with various pore configurations. Biomaterials 2000;21:1291–1298.
      1. Cheng JC, Guo X, Law LP, Lee KM, Chow DH, Rosier R. How does recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-4 enhance posterior spinal fusion? Spine 2002;27:467–474.
      1. Chung SS, Hong KS, Youn HJ, et al. Difference of bonding behavior between four different kinds of hydroxyapatite plate and rabbit\'s bone. J Korean Orthop Assoc 1998;33:158–167.
      1. Ehrler DM, Vaccaro AR. The use of allograft bone in lumbar spine surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000;371:38–45.
      1. Emery SE, Fuller DA, Stevenson S. Ceramic anterior spinal fusion. Biologic and biomechanical comparison in a canine model. Spine 1996;21:2713–2719.
      1. Enneking WF, Campanacci DA. Retrieved human allografts: a clinicopathological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83:971–986.
      1. Friedlaender GE, Strong DM, Tomford WW, Mankin HJ. Long-term follow-up of patients with osteochondral allografts. A correlation between inmunologic responses and clinical outcome. Orthop Clin North Am 1999;30:583–588.
      1. Hall EE, Meffert RM, Hermann JS, Mellonig JT, Cochran DL. Comparison of bioactive glass to demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft in the treatment of intrabony defects around implants in the canine mandible. J Periodontol 1999;70:526–535.
      1. Hamson KR, Toth JM, Stiehl JB, Lynch KL. Preliminary experience with a novel model assessing in vivo mechanical strength of bone grafts and substitute materials. Calcif Tissue Int 1995;57:64–68.
      1. Le Huec JC, Lesprit E, Delavigne C, Clement D, Chauveaux D, Le Rebeller A. Tri-calcium phosphate ceramics and allografts as bone substitutes for spinal fusion in idiopathic scoliosis: comparative clinical results at four years. Acta Orthop Belg 1997;63:202–211.
      1. Lee DH, Ryu HS, Lee SL, et al. Comparison of Osteosynthesis in various types of porous calcium phosphate compounds: an experimental study by posterolateral fusion of rabbit's lumbar vertebrae. J Korean Soc Spine Surg 2001;8:455–467.
      1. Lee JH, Ha JH, Lee DH, et al. Evaluation of biodegradation and osteosynthesis in CaO-SiO2-B2O3 glass-ceramics by posterolateral fusion of rabbit lumbar vertebrae. J Korean Orthop Assoc 2003;38:612–618.
      1. Lee JH, Lee DH, Ha JH, et al. Porous beta-calcium pyrophosphate as a bone graft substitute in a canine bone defect model. J Korean Orthop Assoc 2003;38:384–392.
      1. Marchesi DG. Spinal fusions: bone and bone substitutes. Eur Spine J 2000;9:372–378.
      1. Strong DM, Friedlaender GE, Tomford WW, et al. SImmunologic response in human recipients of osseous and osteochondral allografts. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996;326:107–114.
      1. Tanaka J, Asaka M, Imamura M. T-cell co-signalling molecules in graft-versus-host disease. Ann Hematol 2000;79:283–290.
    Cited by
    Crossref 6
    Google Scholar 
    MeSH Terms
    Allografts*
    Animals
    Autopsy
    Bone Regeneration
    Bone Substitutes*
    Breeding
    Durapatite*
    Graft Rejection
    Osteogenesis
    Palpation
    Rabbits
    Tensile Strength
    Metrics
    Share
    Figures
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 4

    Tables
    slide

    1 / 1

    PERMALINK