Display options
Cite
Gupta AK, Keshav K, Kumar P. Decalcified allograft in repair of lytic lesions of bone: A study to evolve bone bank in developing countries. Indian J Orthop. 2016;50(4):427-33doi: 10.4103/0019-5413.185609.
Gupta, A. K., Keshav, K., & Kumar, P. (2016). Decalcified allograft in repair of lytic lesions of bone: A study to evolve bone bank in developing countries. Indian journal of orthopaedics, 50(4), 427-33. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.185609
Gupta, Anil Kumar, et al. "Decalcified allograft in repair of lytic lesions of bone: A study to evolve bone bank in developing countries." Indian journal of orthopaedics vol. 50,4 (2016): 427-33. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.185609
Gupta AK, Keshav K, Kumar P. Decalcified allograft in repair of lytic lesions of bone: A study to evolve bone bank in developing countries. Indian J Orthop. 2016 Jul-Aug;50(4):427-33. doi: 10.4103/0019-5413.185609. PMID: 27512226; PMCID: PMC4964777.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Indian J Orthop. 2016 Jul-Aug;50(4):427-33. doi: 10.4103/0019-5413.185609.

Decalcified allograft in repair of lytic lesions of bone: A study to evolve bone bank in developing countries.

Indian journal of orthopaedics

Anil Kumar Gupta, Kumar Keshav, Praganesh Kumar

Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Memorial Medical College, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India.

PMID: 27512226 PMCID: PMC4964777 DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.185609

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The quest for ideal bone graft substitutes still haunts orthopedic researchers. The impetus for this search of newer bone substitutes is provided by mismatch between the demand and supply of autogenous bone grafts. Bone banking facilities such as deep frozen and freeze-dried allografts are not so widely available in most of the developing countries. To overcome the problem, we have used partially decalcified, ethanol preserved, and domestic refrigerator stored allografts which are economical and needs simple technology for procurement, preparation, and preservation. The aim of the study was to assess the radiological and functional outcome of the partially decalcified allograft (by weak hydrochloric acid) in patients of benign lytic lesions of bone. Through this study, we have also tried to evolve, establish, and disseminate the concept of the bone bank.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: 42 cases of lytic lesions of bone who were treated by decalcified (by weak hydrochloric acid), ethanol preserved, allografts were included in this prospective study. The allograft was obtained from freshly amputated limbs or excised femoral heads during hip arthroplasties under strict aseptic conditions. The causes of lytic lesions were unicameral bone cyst (n = 3), aneurysmal bone cyst (n = 3), giant cell tumor (n = 9), fibrous dysplasia (n = 12), chondromyxoid fibroma, chondroma, nonossifying fibroma (n = 1 each), tubercular osteomyelitis (n = 7), and chronic pyogenic osteomyelitis (n = 5). The cavity of the lesion was thoroughly curetted and compactly filled with matchstick sized allografts.

RESULTS: Quantitative assessment based on the criteria of Sethi et al. (1993) was done. There was complete assimilation in 27 cases, partial healing in 12 cases, and failure in 3 cases. Functional assessment was also done according to which there were 29 excellent results, 6 good, and 7 cases of failure (infection, recurrence, and nonunion of pathological fracture). We observed that after biological incorporation, the graft participates in bone physiology and morphology. We did not observe any adverse host graft antigenic reaction.

CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that decalcified allograft is suitable alloimplant for use in benign lesions of bone, is easy to prepare and store, and is thus well suited for use in developing countries.

Keywords: Curettage; Gratfing; allograft; bone; bone cysts; curettage; decalcified allograft; graft incorporation; lytic lesions of bone

References

  1. Ann Surg. 1889 Nov;10(5):352-68 - PubMed
  2. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1968 Jan-Feb;56:37-50 - PubMed
  3. Cryobiology. 2007 Oct;55(2):167-70 - PubMed
  4. Isr Med Assoc J. 2010 Feb;12(2):87-90 - PubMed
  5. Indian J Med Res. 2010 Jul;132:15-30 - PubMed
  6. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1987 Dec;45(12):1051-4 - PubMed
  7. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1966 Jul;48(5):968-90 - PubMed
  8. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999 Mar;(360):71-86 - PubMed
  9. Med Sci Monit. 2010 Jan;16(1):BR24-31 - PubMed
  10. Acta Orthop Scand. 1985 Aug;56(4):318-22 - PubMed
  11. J Int Oral Health. 2014 Jun;6(3):120-4 - PubMed
  12. Acta Orthop Scand. 1982 Dec;53(6):857-65 - PubMed
  13. J Orthop Surg Res. 2014 Mar 17;9(1):18 - PubMed
  14. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1972 Sep;87:60-73 - PubMed
  15. Int Orthop. 1988;12 (2):119-24 - PubMed
  16. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001 Jan;83(1):3-8 - PubMed
  17. Int Orthop. 1992;16(2):176-9 - PubMed
  18. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976 Sep;58(6):854-8 - PubMed
  19. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2010 Dec;224(12):1329-43 - PubMed
  20. Orthop Clin North Am. 1999 Oct;30(4):591-8 - PubMed
  21. Injury. 2005 Nov;36 Suppl 3:S20-7 - PubMed
  22. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1963 Dec;45:1617-26 - PubMed
  23. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 Mar;(324):66-74 - PubMed
  24. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1993;112(4):167-70 - PubMed
  25. Organogenesis. 2012 Oct-Dec;8(4):114-24 - PubMed
  26. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Feb;(371):38-45 - PubMed

Publication Types