Reconstruction of massive bone defects is challenging for orthopaedic clinicians, especially in cases of severe trauma and resection of tumors in various locales. Autologous iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) is the “gold standard” for bone grafting. However, the limited availability and complications at donor sites resulted in seeking other options like allografts and bone graft substitutes. Demineralized bone matrix (DBM) is a form of allograft using acidic solution to remove mineral components, while leaving much of the proteinaceous components native to bone, with small amounts of calcium‐based solids, inorganic phosphates, and some trace cell debris. It is an osteoconductive and osteoinductive biomaterial and is approved as a medical device for use in bone defects and spinal fusion. To pack consistently into the defect sites and stay firmly in the filling parts, DBM products have various forms combined with biocompatible viscous carriers, including sponges, strips, injectable putty, paste, and paste infused with chips. The present review aims to summarize the properties of various kind of viscous carriers and their clinical use combined with DBM in commercially available products. Given DBM'mercially available products. Given DBM;s long clinical track record and commercial accessibility in standard forms, opportunities to further develop and validate DBM as a versatile bone biomaterial in orthopaedic repair and regenerative medicine contexts are attractive.

Background Core decompression (CD) is an important method for the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). Few articles investigate the influence of core decompression on outcomes of ONFH. This study was carried out to observe the safety and effectiveness of core decompression in the treatment of ONFH. Methods A comprehensive literature search of databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was performed to collect the related studies. The medical subject headings used were “femur head necrosis” and “Core decompression.” The relevant words in title or abstract included but not limited to “Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head,” “femoral head necrosis,” “avascular necrosis of femoral head,” and “ischemic necrosis of femoral head.” The methodological index for nonrandomized studies was adopted for assessing the studies included in this review. Results Thirty-two studies included 1865 patients (2441 hips). Twenty-one studies (1301 hips) using Ficat staging standard, 7 studies (338hips) using Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO) staging standard, and University of Pennsylvania system for staging avascular necrosis (UPSS) staging criteria for 4 studies (802 hips). All the studies recorded the treatment, 22 studies (1379 hips) were treated with core decompression (CD) alone, and 7 studies (565 hips) were treated with core decompression combined with autologous bone (CD Autologous bone). Nine subjects (497 hips) were treated with core decompression combined with autologous bone marrow (CD Marrow). Twenty-seven studies (2120 hips) documented the number of conversion to total hip replacement (THA), and 26 studies (1752hips) documented the number of radiographic progression (RP). Twenty-one studies recorded the types of complications and the number of cases, a total of 69 cases. The random-effect model was used for meta-analysis, and the results showed that the overall success rate was 65%. The rate of success showed significant difference on the outcomes of different stages. The rate of success, conversion to THA, and radiographic progression showed significant difference on the outcomes of ONFH using different treatments. Conclusions Core decompression is an effective and safe method of treating ONFH. The combined use of autologous bone or bone marrow can increase the success rate. For advanced femoral head necrosis, the use of CD should be cautious. High-quality randomized controlled trials and prospective studies will be necessary to clarify the effects of different etiology factors, treatments, and postoperative rehabilitation. Until then, the surgeon can choose core decompression to treat ONFH depending on the patient’s condition. Level of evidence I Meta-analysis

No abstract

No abstract

Reconstruction of bone defects following femoral diaphyseal tumor resection is challenging. Segmental allograft (SA) and intercalary prosthesis (IP) are the most common reconstruction methods for femoral diaphyseal metastatic tumors with pathological fracture. However, whether the complications and functional outcomes differ between SA and IP remains unclear. To compare the clinical outcomes and complications for patients treated with SA reconstruction or IP replacement for femoral shaft tumors, 34 patients who had undergone intercalary resection for metastatic tumor with pathological fracture in the femoral diaphysis were evaluated. Of these, 18 had received SA and 16 IP. There were 11 males, and 24 females, with a mean age of 64.5±11.3 years. The most common sites of primary metastases were lung (26.5%), breast (17.6%) and liver (14.7%). The visual analog scale (VAS), implant-related complications and the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores for each patient were collected. The follow-up period for patients ranged from 2 to 27 months. At the most recent follow-up, 28 patients had succumbed to mortality, with a mean survival time of 6.9±3.7 months for the IP group and 7.4±3.0 months for the SA group. Patients with IP had a significantly shorter time to full weight bearing and hospitalization time than those who received SA (P=0.003 and P=0.002, respectively). The rates of overall complications and implant-related complications were significantly lower for IP as compared with SA (18.8 vs. 66.7%, P=0.007; 12.5 vs. 55.6%, P=0.013). The reoperation rate of the SA group was higher than that of the IP group (38.9 vs. 12.5%), however the difference between the two groups was statistically insignificant (P=0.125). MSTS scores were significantly higher for the IP group as compared with the SA group at one month after surgery (IP, 26.7±1.6 vs. SA, 20.3±1.5; P<0.05), without a significant difference at the final follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in age, sex, length of resection, follow-up time, operative time or blood loss between the two groups. In summary, IP reconstruction may provide improved early functional outcomes and fewer early complications, particularly for patients with a shorter life expectancy due to femoral metastatic tumors with pathological fracture.