Callotasis in Nonvascularized Periosteal Bone Grafts and the Role of Periosteum

Özerdem, Ömer Refik; Kivanç, Önder; Tuncer, İlhan; Acartürk, Sabri; Göçenler, Levent; Gümürdülü, Derya

doi:10.1097/00000637-199808000-00006

Cited by 22 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…17,18 However, later studies proved also the importance of periosteum in DO. 19,20 Poor bone healing during DO in CPT patients with the proximal tibial dysplasia seems to be attributable to pathological periosteum at the segment undergoing distraction. This may be concordant with poor bone healing capacity at pseudarthrosis sites or poor osteotomy healing at prepseudarthrotic lesions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proximal Tibial Lengthening by Distraction Osteogenesis in Congenital Pseudarthrosis of the Tibia

Cho

Choi

Lee

et al. 2007

Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purposes of this study were to investigate the outcome of distraction osteogenesis (DO) at the proximal tibial metaphysis in congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia (CPT) patients and to identify the risk factors of poor regenerate bone formation. Twenty-seven cases of DO in 22 patients with CPT, with average age of 7 years, were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 contained those cases in which the target length was achieved with a healing index (HI) of 65 d/cm or less, and group 2 contained those with an HI of more than 65 d/cm and those that received additional procedures to achieve bone healing. Clinical and radiological parameters were analyzed and compared between the 2 groups using the Mann-Whitney U test or Fisher exact test. Ten cases were assigned to group 1, with a mean HI of 39 d/cm, and 17 to group 2 with a mean HI of 117 d/cm. Autogenous bone grafting was additionally performed in 12 cases, bone marrow injection in 4 cases, and demineralized bone matrix insertion in 1 case in group 2. Those cases showing proximal tibial dysplasia on radiograms (11 cases) or that underwent repeated lengthening (6 cases) belonged to group 2. The HI was significantly smaller in cases having neither of these 2 factors as compared with those having any of these factors. The present study shows that proximal tibial lengthening by DO in CPT can be safely performed if the proximal tibia is not dysplastic and has not been lengthened previously and that lengthening at a dysplastic proximal tibial segment or at a previously lengthened segment renders delayed healing and may require additional procedure(s) to promote bone healing. Physeal distraction or DO through subphyseal osteotomy may be justified to gain length in this high-risk group.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proximal Tibial Lengthening by Distraction Osteogenesis in Congenital Pseudarthrosis of the Tibia

Cho

Choi

Lee

et al. 2007

Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has proven its reliability not only in orthopedics but also in cranio‐maxillofacial surgery 1–3. The periosteum seems to play a key role in the process of osteogenesis 4–6. Mechanical elevation of the periosteum without corticotomy is therefore sufficient to generate new bone 7–9.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guided bone regeneration: Dynamic procedures versus static shielding in an animal model

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to its osteoinductive potential, the periosteum plays a crucial role in the process of neoosteogenesis. Therefore, periosteal elevation can lead to new bone formation in an artificially created space. In this study, we compared dynamic periosteal elevation with static shielding in an animal experiment. Different elevation/shielding heights of 5, 10, and 15 mm were tested with regard to various consolidation periods. Histological analysis, histomorphometry, and microradiography were used to measure the quantity and quality of the newly formed bone. No significant differences regarding bone quantity or quality were found between the two techniques. The cumulative results for the bone regeneration in the space created by distraction/elevation were about 66% in the dynamic and 67% in static procedure. The main advantages of both techniques are minimal invasion and low morbidity. In terms of clinical applications, periosteal elevation could be applied in cranio-maxillofacial surgery, in pre-implant augmentation and in reconstructive surgery.

show abstract

“…This technique, primarily used in orthopaedic surgery, has had widespread use in maxillofacial surgery [16][17][18]28,32 . Since the periosteum consists of cells that are able to differentiate into osteoblasts 6,34 , periosteal mesenchymal stem cells produce a subperiosteal callus within the osteotomized gap 15,17,27 . KOSTOPOULOS & KAR- RING 24 have stated that tension on the periosteum alone can lead to the production of subperiosteal bone.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Histomorphometrical analysis of new bone obtained by distraction osteogenesis and osteogenesis by periosteal distraction in rabbits

Şençimen

Aydıntuğ

Ortakoğlu

et al. 2007

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Callotasis in Nonvascularized Periosteal Bone Grafts and the Role of Periosteum

Cited by 22 publications

References 0 publications

Proximal Tibial Lengthening by Distraction Osteogenesis in Congenital Pseudarthrosis of the Tibia

Proximal Tibial Lengthening by Distraction Osteogenesis in Congenital Pseudarthrosis of the Tibia

Guided bone regeneration: Dynamic procedures versus static shielding in an animal model

Histomorphometrical analysis of new bone obtained by distraction osteogenesis and osteogenesis by periosteal distraction in rabbits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About