Köpeklerde bifokal ve monofokal distraksiyon osteogenezisinin karşılaştırılması: Tibia defektlerinde deneysel biri çalışma

Uzun kemiklerin segmental defektlerinin tedavileri travmatolojideki en zor problemlerden biridir. Dr. Ilizarov'un 1951 yılında ortaya koyduğu distraksiyon osteogenezisi prensipleri dünyada büyük bir popülarite kazanmıştır. Bu deneysel çalışmada; köpeklerde bifokal distraksiyon osteogenezisi (1. grup) ile monofokal distraksiyon osteogenezisi (2. grup) sonuçlarının klinik, radyografik ve histopatolojik olarak karşılaştırılması amaçlandı. Ondört köpek 2 eşit gruba ayrıldı. Her iki grupta sol tibianin diyafizer bölgesinden 2 cm'lik kemik parçası çıkarıldı. Birinci grupta defekt korunarak proksimal kortikotomi yapıldı. İkinci grupta ise defekt hemen kapatıldı. Kemik transportu ve distraksiyon işlemi 7 günlük bekleme periyodundan sonra her 12 saatte 0.5 mm oranında 20 gün süreyle yapıldı. Bütün olgular 87. günde ötenazi edildi. Klinik olarak, 2. gruptaki distraksiyon 1. gruptaki kemik transportu işlemine oranla daha kolaydı. Bazı olgularda değişik derecelerde gözlenen pin yolu enfeksiyonları 1. grupta 2. gruba oranla daha fazlaydı. Radyografik ve histopatolojik incelemeler Heiple ve ark. ile Lane ve ark. kriterleri dikkate alınarak yapıldı. İstatistiki değerlendirmeler için Mann-Whitney U testi kullanıldı. Radyografik ve histopatolojik değerlendirmeler sonucunda istatistiksel olarak 1. grubun proximali ile 2. grup anlamsız (p>0.05), 1. grubun distali ile 2. grup arasında ise anlamlı (p

Comparison of bifocal and monofocal distraction osteogenesis in dogs: An experimental study in tibial defects

Comparison of Bifocal and Monofocal Distraction Osteogenesis in Dogs: An Experimental Study in Tibial Defects The treatment of segmental defects of long bones is one of the most difficult problems in traumatology. Distraction osteogenesis principals pionored in 1951 year by Dr. Ilizarov has a gained major popularity in the world. In this experimental study, bifocal distraction osteogenesis (Group-1) was compared with monofocal distraction osteogenesis (Group-2) in dogs. Fourteen dogs were divided into two equal groups: In both groups, a two- centimeter-long segment of bone was resected from the diaphysis of the left tibial shaft. In group-1, proximal corticotomy was applied by preserving distal bone segmental defect. In the second group, the segmental defect was immediately closed. Bone transport and distraction were performed at 0.5 mm rate every 12 hours for 20 days after a latency period of 7 days. All cases were euthanized at 87th day. . Results were evaluated with clinical, radiographical, and histological examinations. Clinically; distraction applications in group-2 was performed more easier than that of bone transport in group-1. Radiographical and histopathologic evaluations were made according to the criteria described by Heiple et al. and Lane et al. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U test. Radiographical and histopathological examinations revaled that there was not a statistically significant difference between the proximal area of groups 1 and 2 (p>0.05), whereas significant difference (p

PDF

___

1. Aronson J. Limb-lengthening, skeletal reconstruction and bone transport with the Ilizarov method. J Bone Joint Surg. Am. 1997; 79: 1243-1258.
2. Cattaneo R, Catagni M, Johnson RE. The treatment of ınfected nonunions and segmental defects of the tibia by the methods of Ilizarov. Clin Orthop Rel Res.1992; 280: 143-152.
3. Lesser AS. Segmental bone transport for the treatment of bone deficits. J Amer Anim Hosp Assoc. 1994; 30: 322-330.
4. Morandi M, Zembo MM. The Ilizarov compression- distraction osteosynthesis: A method of treatment for ınfected pseudoarthrosis and segmental bone defects. In: D’Ambrosia RD, Marrier RL (Editors). Orthopaedic Infections. Chapter 9. Slack Incorporation. New Jersey. 1989; 163-190.
5. Paley D, Catagni MA, Argnani F. et al. Ilizarov treatment of tibial nonunions with bone loss. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1989; 241: 146-165.
6. Tucker HL., Kendra JC., and Kinnebra TE.: Tibial defects: Reconstruction using the Ilizarov as an alternative. Orthop Clin North Am.1990; 21, (4): 629- 637.
7. Bilgili H, Kürüm B, ve Olcay B. Ilizarov’un sirküler eksternal fiksasyon sistemi. Bölüm II: Distraksiyon osteogenezi. Veteriner Cerrahi Dergisi. 2000; 6: 95- 100.
8. Danger F, Roukoz S. Compound tibial fractures with bone loss treated by the Ilizarov technigues. J Bone Joint Surg.1991; 73/B: 316-321.
9. Yasui N, Kojimoto H, Sakaki K., et al: Factors affecting callus distraction in limb lengthening. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1993; 293: 55-60.
10. Alonso JE, Regazzoni P. The Use of the concept with the AO/ASİF tubular fixateur in the treatment of segmental defects. Orthop Clin North Am. 1990; 21: 655-665.
11. Welch RD, Lewis DD. Distraction osteogenesis. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1999; 29: 1187- 1205.
12. Green SA, Jackson JM, Wall DM, et al. Management of segmental defects by the Ilizarov intercalary bone transport method. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1992; 250: 136-142.
13. Meffert RH, Inoue N, Tis JE, et al. Distraction osteogenesis after acute limb-shortening for segmental tibial defects. Comparison of a monofocal and a bifocal technique in rabbits. J Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2000; 82: 799-808.
14. Lane JM, Sanchu HS: Current approaches to experimental bone grafting. Orthop Clin North Am. 1987; 18: 218-225.
15. Heiple KG, Goldberg WM, Powel AE. Biology of cancellous bone grafts. Orthop. Clin. North. Am. 1987; 18: 179-185.
16. Köm M, Bulut S. Köpeklerde deneysel tibia defektlerinin onarımında sirküler eksternal fiksatörü kullanılarak yapılan kemik kaydırma tekniği uygulaması. F.Ü. Sağlık Bilimleri Derg. 2002;16: 155-165.
17. Paley D, Catagni MA, Argnani F. et al. Treatment of congenital pseudoarthrosis of the tibia using the Ilizarov technique. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1992; 280: 81-93.
18. Saleh M, Rees A. Bifocal surgery for deformity and bone loss after lower-limb fractures. Comparison of bone transport and compression-distraction methods. J Bone Joint Surg. Br. 1995; 77: 429-434.
19. Ilizarov GA. Clinical application of the tension-stress effect for limb lengthening. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1990; 250: 8-26.
20. Karaharju EO, Aalto K, Kahri A, et al. Distraction bone healing. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1993; 297: 38-43.
21. Aronson J, Shen, X. Experimental healing of distraction osteogenesis comparing metaphyseal with diaphyseal sites. Clin Orthop Rel Res.1994; 301: 25- 30.
22. Steen H and Fjeld TO. Lengthening osteotomy in the metaphysis and diaphysis. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1989; 247: 297-305.
23. Kojimato H, Yasui N, Goto T, et al. Bone lengthening in rabbits by callus distraction. The role periosteum and endosteum. J Bone Joint Surgery. Br. 1988; 70: 543-549.
24. Delloye C, Delefortrie G, Couelier L, Vicent A. Bone regenerate formation in cortical bone during distraction lengthening. Clin Orthop Rel Res.1990; 250: 34-42.
25. Dahl MT, Gulli B, Berg T. Complication of limb lengthening. A learning curve. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1994; 301: 10-18.
26. Pablos J, Barrios C, Alfero C, Canadell J. Large experimental bone defects treated by bone transportation with monolateral external distractors. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1994; 198: 259-265.