4.4 Article

Bone formation and resorption in patients after implantation of β-tricalcium phosphate blocks with 60% and 75% porosity in opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.31041

Keywords

biodegradation; bone graft; bone remodeling; calcium phosphate(s); clinical

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Most of the implanted porous beta-tricalcium phosphate (beta-TCP) can be resorbed. However, beta-TCP block with 75% porosity is inadequate for weight-bearing sites until bone incorporation occurs. Thus, the authors have recently developed beta-TCP block with 60% porosity, which is approximately sevenfold greater in terms of compressive strength than that of beta-TCP with 75% porosity. The authors investigated bone formation and resorption of beta-TCP after implantation in patients of beta-TCP blocks with two different porosities. From May 2003 to November 2004, medial opening high tibial osteotomy was performed in 25 patients with a mean age of 66 years. The opened defect was fixed with a Puddu plate. Then 6-8 cm(3) of beta-TCP block with 75% porosity was used to fill the cancellous bone defect, except on the medial side where 2.83-3.18 cm(3) of wedge-shaped beta-TCP block with 60% porosity was implanted. At least 2 years after surgery, the 25 patients had no correction loss, and bone formation was noted in all cases. Complete or nearly complete resorption of beta-TCP With 60 and 75% porosity was obtained within 3.5 years. Thirteen biopsy samples obtained from the 60% porosity implantation sites showed good lamellar bone formation, and the percentage of beta-TCP remaining relative to the newly formed bone plus beta-TCP ranged from 0.3 to 14.5%, with a mean of 6.7%. The authors suspect that mechanical stress loading to the medial side of the tibia facilitated bone formation and resorption of beta-TCP with 60% porosity. (c) 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available