4.5 Article

Comparing calvarial transport distraction with and without radiation and fat grafting

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRANIO-MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 42, Issue 7, Pages 1412-1422

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2014.04.003

Keywords

Calvaria; Bone distraction; Skull reconstruction; 3D distraction

Funding

  1. Synthes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study is to: a) assess transport distraction to reconstruct cranial defects in radiated and non-radiated fields b) examine adipose grafting's effect on the bony regenerate and overlying wound, and c) elucidate sources of bone formation during transport distraction osteogenesis. Twenty-three male New Zealand white rabbits (3 months; 3.5 kg) were used, 10 non-irradiated and 13 irradiated (17 treatment, 6 control) with a one-time fraction of 35 Gy. A 16 x 16 mm defect was abutted by a 10 x 16 mm transport disc 5 weeks after irradiation, and 11 animals were fat grafted at the distraction site. Latency (1 day), distraction (1.5 mm/day), and consolidation (4 weeks) followed. Fluorochromes were injected subcutaneously and microCT, fluorescence, and histology assessed. In distracted animals without fat grafting, bone density measured 701.87 mgHA/ccm and 2271.95 mgHA/ccm in irradiated and non-irradiated animals. In distracted animals with fat grafting, bone density measured 703.23 mgHA/ccm and 2254.27 mgHA/ccm in irradiated and non-irradiated animals. Fluorescence revealed ossification emanating from the dura, periosteum, and transport segment with decreased formation in irradiated animals. Transport distraction is possible for cranial reconstruction in irradiated fields but short-term osseous fill is significantly diminished. Adipose grafting enhances wound healing in previously irradiated fields but does not enhance ossification. (C) 2014 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available