TRAUMA
2019 OTA Annual Meeting: Autologous Iliac Bone Graft versus Biphasic Hydroxyapatite/Calcium Sulfate Cement for Treatment of Bone Defects in Tibial Plateau Fractures: A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2025;13(3):39Bone graft substitutes are generally required in tibial plateau fractures. Previous studies have established calcium phosphate as superior to autogenous iliac crest bone graft (AIBG), at least in terms of subsidence. The authors in this study randomized 137 patients with AO 41-B2 and 41-B3 fractures to receiver either AIBG or a hydroxyapatite/calcium sulfate cement. Outcomes measured were the SF-12 physical and mental component scores (PCS & MCS), pain on visual analogue scale, and subsidence on radiography, all measured at 26 weeks post-operatively. The calcium bone substitute was non-inferior in terms of SF12 PCS, MCS, subsidence, and pain score. There was significantly less blood loss in the calcium bone substitute group, and a trend towards shorter duration of surgery.
学会報告
このACE報告は、学会発表または抄録の要約です。提供された情報により、バイアスのリスクや全体的な質の正確な評価を提供することには限界があります。臨床試験が進行中であったり、選択された結果が発表されている可能性があるため、結果を慎重に解釈してください。
なぜ今この研究が必要なのですか？
Previous evidence has suggested that the use of calcium phosphate is superior to autologous iliac crest bone grafting in terms of subsidence for use in tibial plateau fractures. This study aims to re-examine this question based on currently available technology.
主な研究課題は何ですか？
In patients with tibial plateau fractures who require bone substitute, how does an autologous iliac bone graft (AIBG) compare to a biphasic hydroxyapatite/calcium sulfate cement in terms of pain, function, blood loss, operative time, and subsidence?
重要な知見は？
- The biphasic hydroxyapatite/calcium sulfate cement group had significantly less estimated blood loss
- There was a trend towards shorter operative time (non-significant) in the hydroxyapatite/calcium sulfate cement group
- There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of subsidence, pain, or SF-12 scores
最も覚えておくべきことは？
The calcium bone substitute was non-inferior in terms of SF12 PCS, MCS, subsidence, and pain score. There was significantly less blood loss in the calcium bone substitute group, and a trend towards shorter duration of surgery.
それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか？
This trial suggests counter to previous evidence that AIBG may actually be similar to calcium bone substitute in terms of subsidence, though it may result in longer operative times and potentially greater blood loss.
免責事項
このページに記載されている内容は、情報提供のみを目的としたものであり、専門的な医療アドバイス、診断、治療の代わりとなるものではありません。治療が必要な場合は、必ず医師の診断を仰ぐか、最寄りの救急外来を受診してください。このページに記載されている内容に関して個人が表明した意見、信念、見解は、OrthoEvidenceの意見、信念、見解を反映するものではありません。
0の4 月間無料記事のロック解除
