Ankle Arthrodesis Fusion Rates for Mesenchymal Stem Cell Bone Allograft Versus Proximal Tibia Autograft

被引:18
作者
Anderson, John J. [1 ]
Boone, Joshua J. [2 ]
Hansen, Myron [3 ]
Brady, Chad [4 ]
Gough, Adam [5 ]
Swayzee, Zflan [1 ]
机构
[1] New Mexico Bone & Joint Inst, Alamogordo, NM 88310 USA
[2] Scripps Mercy Kaiser San Diego Residency Program, San Diego, CA USA
[3] Cactus Foot & Ankle, Chandler, AZ USA
[4] New Mexico Foot & Ankle Inst, Albuquerque, NM USA
[5] Gila Reg Med Ctr, Silver City, NM USA
关键词
ACFAS ankle score; ankle fusion; ankle arthritis; autograft; bone graft; mesenchymal stem cell (MSC); SURGERY; HISTORY; FOOT;
D O I
10.1053/j.jfas.2014.06.029
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
100224 [整形外科学];
摘要
Ankle arthrodesis is commonly used in the treatment of ankle arthritis. The present study compared mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) bone allografts and proximal tibia autografts as adjuncts in performing ankle arthrodesis. A total of 109 consecutive ankle fusions performed from 2002 to 2008 were evaluated retrospectively. Of the 109 fusions, 24 were excluded from the present study, leaving 85 patients who had undergone ankle arthrodesis. Of the 85 patients, 41 had received a proximal tibia autograft and 44, an MSC bone allograft. These 2 groups were reviewed and compared retrospectively at least 2 years postoperatively for the overall fusion rate, interval to radiographic fusion, and interval to clinical fusion. A modified and adjusted American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons ankle scale was used to measure patient satisfaction. The overall fusion rate was 84.1% in the MSC bone allograft group and 95.1% in the proximal tibia autograft group (p = .158). The corresponding mean intervals to radiographic fusion were 13.0 +/- 2.5 weeks and 11.3 +/- 2.8 weeks (p <= .001). The interval to clinical fusion was 13.1 +/- 2.1 weeks and 11.0 +/- 1.5 weeks (p <= .001) in the MSC bone allograft and proximal tibia autograft group, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found in the fusion rates between the MSC bone allograft and proximal tibia autograft groups. Also, no statistically significant difference was found between the preoperative and postoperative scores using a modified and adjusted American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons ankle scale between the 2 groups (p = .41 and p = .44, respectively). A statistically significant delay to radiographic and clinical fusion was present in the MSC bone allograft group compared with the proximal tibia autograft group; however, no difference was found in patient satisfaction. (C) 2014 by the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:683 / 686
页数:4
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]
Arinzeh Treena Livingston, 2005, Foot Ankle Clin, V10, P651, DOI 10.1016/j.fcl.2005.06.004
[2]
Recombinant Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 (rhBMP-2) in High-Risk Ankle and Hindfoot Fusions [J].
Bibbo, Christopher ;
Patel, Dipak V. ;
Haskell, Michelle D. .
FOOT & ANKLE INTERNATIONAL, 2009, 30 (07) :597-603
[3]
Bruder DP, 1994, J CELL BIOCHEM, V56, P283
[4]
Mesenchymal Stem Cell Concentration and Bone Repair: Potential Pitfalls from Bench to Bedside [J].
Cuomo, Anna V. ;
Virk, Mandeep ;
Petrigliano, Frank ;
Morgan, Elise F. ;
Lieberman, Jay R. .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2009, 91A (05) :1073-1083
[5]
DEBOER HH, 1988, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P292
[6]
Interobservational variation in determining fusion rates in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion procedures [J].
Fountas, Kostas N. ;
Kapsalaki, Eftychia Z. ;
Smith, Betsy E. ;
Nikolakakos, Leonidas G. ;
Richardson, Charles H. ;
Smisson, Hugh F. ;
Robinson, Joe S. ;
Parish, David C. .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2007, 16 (01) :39-45
[7]
GOLDBERG VM, 1987, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P7
[8]
Haverstock B D, 1998, J Foot Ankle Surg, V37, P69
[9]
Kanakaris NK, 2009, INJURY, V40, P62
[10]
Ankle fusion for bone loss around the ankle joint using the Ilizarov technique [J].
Kovoor, C. C. ;
Padmanabhan, V. ;
Bhaskar, D. ;
George, V. V. ;
Viswanath, S. .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME, 2009, 91B (03) :361-366