This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Musculoskeletal Cancer


Table 3: Comparative Pre-clinical and Clinical Studies of Mineral Bone Graft Substitutes in the Treatment of Bone Defects


Study (Reference) Vehicle


Uchida et al., 198463


Saini et al., 200675


(Trade Name) CP, HA, CAl (NS)


β-TCP


(FormPutty, Vitoss)


Design


Pre-clinical rabbit/rat


Condition: Comparison


Calvarial defect: CP versus HA versus CAl


Pre-clinical Humeral defect: canine


FormPutty versus Vitoss versus ICBG versus sham


Level Number N/A NS N/A 26


Mean FU (Months)


6 6 Findings


All 3 had ingrowth, ‘considerably lower- density ingrowth in CAl group’; no adverse reactions


Both synthetics had increased tissue reaction scores at 12 weeks compared with ICBG and sham as well as themselves at 6 weeks; both


had significantly decreased residual implant at 12 weeks compared with 6 weeks; no difference in yield force, stiffness or failure force at 12 or 24 weeks


Urban et al., 200799


Hing et al., 200795


CS (Osteoset), Pre-clinical Humeral defect: CS/CP cement canine (Prodense)


CS (Osteoset), Pre-clinical Femoral defect: β-TCP (Vitoss), rabbit Si-CP (Actifuse)


Habibovic et al., HA/β-TCP, 2008106


Pre-clinical Bone defect:


HA/β-TCP + PLA, goat CA, HA (NS)


Ogose et al., HA (Bonfil), 200571


β-TCP (OSferion)


Bucholz et al., HA blocks 198955


HA/β-TCP versus HA/β-TCP +


PLA versus CA versus HA


Retrospective Benign bone case series


tumors:


Bonfil versus OSferion


(Pro Osteon)


Petruskevicius CS pellets et al., 200243


Prospective Tibial palteau controlled


fractures: Pro Osteon versus ICBG


(Osteoset)


Dickson et al., HA cement 200256


Cassidy et al., CP cement 200381


Sanchez-Sotelo CP cement et al., 200082


Prospective BTB defects: controlled


I


Osteoset versus nothing


Prospective Metaphyseal (BoneSource) controlled (Norian SRS) (Norian SRS)


fractures: BoneSource versus ICBG


Prospective Distal radius controlled


Prospective Distal radius controlled


I


fractures: Norian SRS versus nothing


I


fractures: Norian SRS versus nothing


Mattsson et al., CP cement 200487


(Norian SRS)


Mattsson et al., CP cement 200586


Mattsson et al., CP cement 200388


(Norian SRS) (Norian SRS)


Prospective Intertrochanteric controlled


I


fractures: Norian SRS versus nothing


Prospective Intertrochanteric controlled


Prospective Femoral neck controlled


I


fractures: Norian SRS versus nothing


I


fractures: Norian SRS versus nothing


44 40 1.5 112 6 26 6 110 12 297 12 I 44 6 20 6 I 40 25 III 53 26 N/A


Osteoset versus Prodense


N/A NS


Osteoset versus Vitoss versus Actifuse


N/A 11 3 3 10 6


Prodense showed statisticaly increased compressive strength, modulus of elasticity closer to bone, and slower resorption Rapid resolution of CS with inflammatory reaction; β-TCP also had inflammatory phase; Si-CP was more stable scaffold, had faster


angiogenesis, and had denser/more mature bone apposition


At 3 months: β-TCP/HA showed new bone formation; HA, CA, HA/β-TCP + PLA, and deactivated HA/β-TCP showed no bone formation


4% overall patholgic fracture; HA showed no resorption; β-TCP had quicker time to


incorporation (10 versus 17 weeks); HA group


had subsidence (2 versus 0%): not statistically significant


Unable to find any differences; 7 cases


underwent biopsy, which showed 25–47% bone ingrowth, 25–39% residual HA; no cases of complete HA resorption


CT evaluation: significantly increased bone in control group from 6 to 12 weeks but not in


graft group, no differences found between two groups at any time interval


83 versus 67% improved reduction maintenance in HA group; ‘success’ increased at 6 and 12 months: not statistically signficant


Norian: allowed earlier motion, statistically improved function at 6–8 weeks; No difference in function or reduction/healing at 1 year Norian: allowed earlier motion, statistically improved function and range of motion at earlier


time interval; improved statisfactory results (82 versus 56%) and improved maintenance of reduction at 1 year in Norian group (42 versus 18%) Norian: statistically decreased translation and varus angulation in first 6 months


Norian: statistically increased blood loss, improved function at 6 weeks, improved SF-36 scores at 6 months


Norian: statistically decreased translation and varus angulation in first 6 weeks


US ONCOLOGY & HEMATOLOGY


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84