Premium
Low‐heat treated autograft versus allograft for intercalary reconstruction of malignant bone tumors
Author(s) -
Han Ilkyu,
Kim June Hyuk,
Cho HwanSeong,
Kim HanSoo
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of surgical oncology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.201
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1096-9098
pISSN - 0022-4790
DOI - 10.1002/jso.23727
Subject(s) - medicine , nonunion , surgery , intramedullary rod , transplantation , saline , overall survival
Low‐heat treated autograft may have an advantage over allograft in that they provide a size‐matched and biologically compatible graft. Materials and Methods We compared the graft survival and complications between the low‐heat treated autografts (n = 13) and allografts (17) for intercalary reconstruction of malignant bone tumors. Average age was 25 years with follow‐up of 6.6 years (1.8–12.5). For low‐heat treatment, the resected bone was treated in saline at 65°C for 30 min. Nineteen grafts were fixed with plates and 13 with intramedullary nails. Results Until last follow‐up, five low‐heat treated autografts (38%) and one allograft (6%) had been removed, with allografts showing a trend toward better survival on Kaplan–Meier analysis ( P = 0.293). Complications were more common in low‐heat treated autograft group [10/13 (77%) vs. 8/17 (47%), P = 0.098)]. Low‐heat‐treated autograft resulted in significantly higher rate of nonunion [11/26 (42%) vs. 5/34 (15%), P = 0.017] and required higher number of operations to treat nonunion ( P = 0.004). Rates of graft fracture [3/13 (23%) vs. 2/17 (12%), P = 0.713)] or infection [2/13 (15%) vs. 1/17 (6%), P = 0.565)] were similar. Conclusion Our data suggest that intercalary allograft has better survival and fewer complications than the low‐heat treated autograft. J. Surg. Oncol. 2014 110:823–827 . © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.