[Biological reconstruction of large bone defects : Masquelet technique and new procedures].
Biologische Rekonstruktion von großen Knochendefekten : Masquelet-Technik und neue Verfahren.
3D printing
Induced membrane
Masquelet technique
Open fractures
Scaffolds
Journal
Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)
ISSN: 2731-703X
Titre abrégé: Unfallchirurgie (Heidelb)
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9918384886306676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2023
Mar 2023
Historique:
accepted:
18
11
2022
pubmed:
28
12
2022
medline:
14
3
2023
entrez:
27
12
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Extensive diaphyseal and metaphyseal bone defects continue to pose a major challenge for orthopedic trauma surgeons. Various treatment options have been described for the biological reconstruction of these defects. The most frequently used methods are bone segment transport, the Masquelet technique and 3D printed scaffolds. As far as the Masquelet technique is concerned, in the first stage spacers, such as polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), calcium sulfate or polypropylene are inserted into the bone defects to induce a foreign body membrane. In the second stage the bone defect surrounded by the induced membrane is filled with autologous cancellous bone. The time interval between the first and second interventions is usually 4-8 weeks whereby the induced membranes do not lose their bioactivity even with a latency period longer than 8 weeks. Three-dimensional printed scaffolds are increasingly used but large clinical studies are lacking in order to show the exact role of this procedure in the reconstruction of bone defects. Ausgedehnte dia- und metaphysäre Knochendefekte stellen nach wie vor eine große Herausforderung für Unfallchirurg*innen dar. Zur biologischen Rekonstruktion derartiger Defekte wurden verschiedene Behandlungsoptionen beschrieben. Die am häufigsten verwendeten Methoden sind der Segmenttransport, die Masquelet-Technik und 3D-gedruckte Scaffolds (Gerüste). Bei der Masquelet-Technik dienen im Ersteingriff in den Knochendefekt eingebrachte Spacer aus Polymethylmethacrylat (PMMA), Kalziumsulfat oder Polypropylen der Induktion einer Fremdkörpermembran; im Zweiteingriff erfolgt die Auffüllung des membranös umgebenen Knochendefekts mit autologer Spongiosa. Der zeitliche Abstand zwischen beiden operativen Eingriffen beträgt 4 bis 8 Wochen, wobei die induzierten Membranen auch bei einer zeitlichen Latenz länger als 8 Wochen nicht ihre Bioaktivität einbüßen. Dreidimensional gedruckte Scaffolds finden zunehmend Anwendung, wobei jedoch große klinische Studie fehlen, um die genaue Rolle dieses Verfahrens bei der Rekonstruktion von Knochendefekten zu zeigen.
Autres résumés
Type: Publisher
(ger)
Ausgedehnte dia- und metaphysäre Knochendefekte stellen nach wie vor eine große Herausforderung für Unfallchirurg*innen dar. Zur biologischen Rekonstruktion derartiger Defekte wurden verschiedene Behandlungsoptionen beschrieben. Die am häufigsten verwendeten Methoden sind der Segmenttransport, die Masquelet-Technik und 3D-gedruckte Scaffolds (Gerüste). Bei der Masquelet-Technik dienen im Ersteingriff in den Knochendefekt eingebrachte Spacer aus Polymethylmethacrylat (PMMA), Kalziumsulfat oder Polypropylen der Induktion einer Fremdkörpermembran; im Zweiteingriff erfolgt die Auffüllung des membranös umgebenen Knochendefekts mit autologer Spongiosa. Der zeitliche Abstand zwischen beiden operativen Eingriffen beträgt 4 bis 8 Wochen, wobei die induzierten Membranen auch bei einer zeitlichen Latenz länger als 8 Wochen nicht ihre Bioaktivität einbüßen. Dreidimensional gedruckte Scaffolds finden zunehmend Anwendung, wobei jedoch große klinische Studie fehlen, um die genaue Rolle dieses Verfahrens bei der Rekonstruktion von Knochendefekten zu zeigen.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36573997
doi: 10.1007/s00113-022-01267-9
pii: 10.1007/s00113-022-01267-9
doi:
Substances chimiques
Polymethyl Methacrylate
9011-14-7
Types de publication
English Abstract
Journal Article
Review
Langues
ger
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
184-189Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.
Références
Liodakis E, Kenawey M, Krettek C, Wiebking U, Hankemeier S (2011) Comparison of 39 post-traumatic tibia bone transports performed with and without the use of an intramedullary rod: the long-term outcomes. Int Orthop 35(9):1397–1402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1094-5
doi: 10.1007/s00264-010-1094-5
pubmed: 20652249
Ilizarov GA, Lediaev VI (1969) Replacement of defects of long tubular bones by means of one of their fragments. Vestn Khir Im I I Grek 102(6):77–84
pubmed: 4904826
Masquelet AC, Fitoussi F, Begue T, Muller GP (2000) Reconstruction of the long bones by the induced membrane and spongy autograft. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 45(3):346–353
pubmed: 10929461
Papakostidis C, Bhandari M, Giannoudis PV (2013) Distraction osteogenesis in the treatment of long bone defects of the lower limbs: effectiveness, complications and clinical results; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Joint J 95-B(12):1673–1680. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B12.32385
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B12.32385
pubmed: 24293599
Stafford PR, Norris BL (2010) Reamer-irrigator-aspirator bone graft and bi Masquelet technique for segmental bone defect nonunions: a review of 25 cases. Injury 41(2):72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(10)70014-0
doi: 10.1016/S0020-1383(10)70014-0
Paley D (1990) Problems, obstacles, and complications of limb lengthening by the Ilizarov technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 25(0):81–104
Morwood MP, Streufert BD, Bauer A, Olinger C, Tobey D, Beebe M, Avilucea F, Buitrago AR, Collinge C, Sanders R, Mir H (2019) Intramedullary Nails Yield Superior Results Compared With Plate Fixation When Using the Masquelet Technique in the Femur and Tibia. J Orthop Trauma 33(11):547–552. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001579
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001579
pubmed: 31403558
Krappinger D, Lindtner RA, Zegg M, Dal Pont A, Huber B (2015) Masquelet technique for the treatment of large dia- and metaphyseal bone defects. Oper Orthop Traumatol 27(4):357–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-014-0300-9
doi: 10.1007/s00064-014-0300-9
pubmed: 26018724
Cuthbert RJ, Churchman SM, Tan HB, McGonagle D, Jones E, Giannoudis PV (2013) Induced periosteum a complex cellular scaffold for the treatment of large bone defects. Bone 57(2):484–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2013.08.009
doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2013.08.009
pubmed: 23954755
Niikura T, Oda T, Jimbo N, Komatsu M, Oe K, Fukui T, Matsumoto T, Hayashi S, Matsushita T, Itoh T, Kuroda R (2022) Immunohistochemical analysis revealed the expression of bone morphogenetic proteins‑4, 6, 7, and 9 in human induced membrane samples treated with the Masquelet technique. J Orthop Surg Res 17(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02922-y
doi: 10.1186/s13018-022-02922-y
pubmed: 35033126
pmcid: 8760771
Giannoudis PV, Faour O, Goff T, Kanakaris N, Dimitriou R (2011) Masquelet technique for the treatment of bone defects: tips-tricks and future directions. Injury 42(6):591–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.03.036
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.03.036
pubmed: 21543068
Sagardoy T, Ehret C, Bareille R, Benoit J, Amedee J, De Mones E (2018) Influence of External Beam Radiotherapy on the Properties of Polymethyl Methacrylate-Versus Silicone-Induced Membranes in a Bilateral Segmental Bone Defect in Rats. Tissue Eng Part A 24(9):703–710. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2017.0095
doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2017.0095
pubmed: 28851250
McBride-Gagyi S, Toth Z, Kim D, Ip V, Evans E, Watson JT, Nicolaou D (2018) Altering spacer material affects bone regeneration in the Masquelet technique in a rat femoral defect. J Orthop Res. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23866
doi: 10.1002/jor.23866
pubmed: 29424019
pmcid: 6785358
Toth Z, Roi M, Evans E, Watson JT, Nicolaou D, McBride-Gagyi S (2019) Masquelet technique: effects of spacer material and micro-topography on factor expression and Bone regeneration. Ann Biomed Eng 47(1):174–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-018-02137-5
doi: 10.1007/s10439-018-02137-5
pubmed: 30259220
Mathieu L, Murison JC, de Rousiers A, de l’Escalopier N, Lutomski D, Collombet JM, Durand M (2021) The Masquelet Technique: Can Disposable Polypropylene Syringes be an Alternative to Standard PMMA Spacers? A Rat Bone Defect Model. Clin Orthop Relat Res 479(12):2737–2751. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000001939
doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001939
pubmed: 34406150
pmcid: 8726567
Ma YF, Jiang N, Zhang X, Qin CH, Wang L, Hu YJ, Lin QR, Yu B, Wang BW (2018) Calcium sulfate induced versus PMMA-induced membrane in a critical-sized femoral defect in a rat model. Sci Rep 8(1):637. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17430-x
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-17430-x
pubmed: 29330453
pmcid: 5766563
Liodakis E, Giannoudis VP, Sehmisch S, Jha A, Giannoudis PV (2022) Bone defect treatment: does the type and properties of the spacer affect the induction of Masquelet membrane? Evidence today. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-022-02005-x
doi: 10.1007/s00068-022-02005-x
pubmed: 36194242
pmcid: 9925505
Thomas MV, Puleo DA (2009) Calcium sulfate: Properties and clinical applications. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 88(2):597–610. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.31269
doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.31269
pubmed: 19025981
Jiang N, Qin CH, Ma YF, Wang L, Yu B (2016) Possibility of one-stage surgery to reconstruct bone defects using the modified Masquelet technique with degradable calcium sulfate as a cement spacer: A case report and hypothesis. Biomed Rep 4(3):374–378. https://doi.org/10.3892/br.2016.584
doi: 10.3892/br.2016.584
pubmed: 26998279
pmcid: 4774369
Xie J, Wang W, Fan X, Li H, Wang H, Liao R, Hu Y, Zeng M (2021) Masquelet technique: Effects of vancomycin concentration on quality of the induced membrane. Injury. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2021.11.003
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2021.11.003
pubmed: 34972564
Shah SR, Smith BT, Tatara AM, Molina ER, Lee EJ, Piepergerdes TC, Uhrig BA, Guldberg RE, Bennett GN, Wenke JC, Mikos AG (2017) Effects of local antibiotic delivery from porous space maintainers on infection clearance and induction of an Osteogenic membrane in an infected Bone defect. Tissue Eng Part A 23(3):91–100. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2016.0389
doi: 10.1089/ten.TEA.2016.0389
pubmed: 27998243
pmcid: 5312600
Masquelet AC, Begue T (2010) The concept of induced membrane for reconstruction of long bone defects. Orthop Clin North Am 41(1):27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2009.07.011
doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2009.07.011
pubmed: 19931050
Karger C, Kishi T, Schneider L, Fitoussi F, Masquelet AC, French Society of Orthopaedic S (2012) Treatment of posttraumatic bone defects by the induced membrane technique. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98(1):97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2011.11.001
doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2011.11.001
pubmed: 22244249
Gessmann J, Rosteius T, Baecker H, Sivalingam K, Peter E, Schildhauer TA, Koller M (2021) Is the bioactivity of induced membranes time dependent? Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-021-01844-4
doi: 10.1007/s00068-021-01844-4
pubmed: 34873632
pmcid: 9360131
Gindraux F, Loisel F, Bourgeois M, Oudina K, Melin M, de Billy B, Sergent P, Leclerc G, Petite H, Auber F, Obert L, Pluvy I (2020) Induced membrane maintains its osteogenic properties even when the second stage of Masquelet’s technique is performed later. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 46(2):301–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-019-01184-4
doi: 10.1007/s00068-019-01184-4
pubmed: 31321472
Assal M, Stern R (2014) The Masquelet procedure gone awry. Orthopedics 37(11):e1045–1048. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20141023-93
doi: 10.3928/01477447-20141023-93
pubmed: 25361369
Huang Q, Ren C, Li M, Xu Y, Li Z, Lin H, Zhang K, Ma T (2021) Antibiotic calcium sulfate-loaded hybrid transport versus traditional Ilizarov bone transport in the treatment of large tibial defects after trauma. J Orthop Surg Res 16(1):568. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02723-9
doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02723-9
pubmed: 34544458
pmcid: 8454113
Huang Q, Xu Y, Lu Y, Ren C, Liu L, Li M, Wang Q, Li Z, Xue H, Zhang K, Ma T (2022) Acute shortening and re-lengthening versus antibiotic calcium sulfate-loaded bone transport for the management of large segmental tibial defects after trauma. J Orthop Surg Res 17(1):219. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03109-1
doi: 10.1186/s13018-022-03109-1
pubmed: 35399099
pmcid: 8996420
Qin CH, Zhang HA, Chee YH, Pitarini A, Ali AA (2019) Comparison of the use of antibiotic-loaded calcium sulphate and wound irrigation-suction in the treatment of lower limb chronic osteomyelitis. Injury 50(2):508–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2018.10.036
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.10.036
pubmed: 30447985
Henkel J, Woodruff MA, Epari DR, Steck R, Glatt V, Dickinson IC, Choong PF, Schuetz MA, Hutmacher DW (2013) Bone regeneration based on tissue engineering conceptions—A 21st century perspective. Bone Res 1(3):216–248. https://doi.org/10.4248/BR201303002
doi: 10.4248/BR201303002
pubmed: 26273505
pmcid: 4472104
Sun H, Mei L, Song C, Cui X, Wang P (2006) The in vivo degradation, absorption and excretion of PCL-based implant. Biomaterials 27(9):1735–1740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.09.019
doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.09.019
pubmed: 16198413
Surmenev RA, Surmeneva MA, Ivanova AA (2014) Significance of calcium phosphate coatings for the enhancement of new bone osteogenesis—a review. Acta Biomater 10(2):557–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2013.10.036
doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2013.10.036
pubmed: 24211734
Wang J, Cui Y, Liu H, Li S, Sun S, Xu H, Peng C, Wang Y, Wu D (2022) MicroRNA-loaded biomaterials for osteogenesis. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 10:952670. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.952670
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.952670
pubmed: 36199361
pmcid: 9527286
Sriram M, Sainitya R, Kalyanaraman V, Dhivya S, Selvamurugan N (2015) Biomaterials mediated microRNA delivery for bone tissue engineering. Int J Biol Macromol 74:404–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.12.034
doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.12.034
pubmed: 25543062
Nommeots-Nomm A, Labbaf S, Devlin A, Todd N, Geng H, Solanki AK, Tang HM, Perdika P, Pinna A, Ejeian F, Tsigkou O, Lee PD, Esfahani MHN, Mitchell CA, Jones JR (2017) Highly degradable porous melt-derived bioactive glass foam scaffolds for bone regeneration. Acta Biomater 57:449–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2017.04.030
doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.04.030
pubmed: 28457960
Li F, Chen X, Liu P (2022) A Review on 3D Printed SBG/BMSP Composite Scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEB.2022.0140
doi: 10.1089/ten.TEB.2022.0140
pubmed: 36301943