Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1998; 11(04): 178-184
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632543
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Comparison of Cemented and Non-cemented Allografts in Dogs with Osteosarcoma[*]

J. Kirpensteijn
1   From the Department of Clinical Sciences
,
D. Steinheimer
2   Radiological Health Sciences and Pathology
,
R. D. Park
2   Radiological Health Sciences and Pathology
,
B. E. Powers
3   College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins CO, USA; and Department of Clinical Sciences of Companion Animals
,
R. C. Straw
1   From the Department of Clinical Sciences
,
N. Endenburg
4   Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
,
S. J. Withrow
1   From the Department of Clinical Sciences
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received:06 January 1998

Accepted:02 April 1998

Publication Date:
10 February 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

This study compares the radiographic and histological appearance of cemented and non-cemented massive cortical allografts in dogs that underwent a limb sparing procedure for osteosarcoma of the distal radius. Treatment consisted of removal of the affected bone and pancarpal arthrodesis using non-cemented (n = 13) or cemented (n = 47) fresh-frozen allografts. Allografts were evaluated using a radiographic and histological scoring system and compared statistically between groups. Allografts with better healing received a higher radiographic score and a lower histological score. The mean radiographic scores, for proximal union and distal union, were significantly greater in the non-cemented group at most evaluation periods. Complications after the operation included screw, plate, allograft and host bone failure, infection and local tumour recurrence. Screw failure in the allograft and allograft failure were significantly more common in the non-cemented group. Histological examination was performed on 44 dogs and cement increased the mean combined histological scores, and mean healing scores of the distal host-graft interface significantly. The use of cemented allografts significantly decreases complications associated with implant loosening or allograft failure but may slightly delay allograft healing. At this point, the clinical relevance of the delay in healing is questionable and the benefits of intramedullary PMMA would appear to outweigh this relative delay in healing.

This study evaluated 60 radial allografts after limb sparing procedures using a standardized radiological and histological scoring system. The use of cemented allografts significantly decreased complications associated with implant loosening or allograft failure but may slightly delay allograft healing.

Keywords

Dog - limb sparing - allograft - polymethylmethacrylate - bone healing - osteosarcoma

* This study was supported in part by grant # 2 POl CA 29582 from the National Cancer Institute. The contents of this report are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute.

* Dr. Kirpensteijn’s current address is: Department of Clinical Sciences of Companion Animals, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, PO Box 80.154, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands. Dr. Straw’s current address is Howard Small Animal Clinic, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia.


 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Enneking WF. Modification of the system for functional evaluation of surgical management of musculoskeletal tumors. Enneking WF. (ed) In Limb salvage in musculoskeletal oncology.. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1987: 626-39.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Goldberg VM, Stevenson S. Natural history of autografts and allografts. Clin Orthop 1987; 225: 7-16.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Griffiths MD, Anderson JR, Thompson RC, Amundson P. Radiographic evaluation of complications in long bone allografts. Skeletal Radiol 1995; 24: 283-6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hanson PD, Markel MD. Bone and cartilage transplantation. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1992; 5: 163-9.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Heiple KG, Chase SW, Herndon CH. A comparative study of the healing process following different types of bone transplantation. J Bone Joint Surg 1963; 45: 1593-616.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Henry SL, Galloway KP. Local antibacterial therapy for the management of orthopedic infections. Pharmacokinetic considerations. Clin Pharmacokinet 1995; 29 (01) 36-45.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kerwin SC, Lewis DD, Elkins AD. Bone grafting and banking. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1991; 13: 558-76.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Klause SE, Gustafson SB, Blackketter DM, Schwarz PD. Holding strenght of 4.5 mm cortical screws in polymethylmethacrylate filled medullary cavities of canine bone. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1992; 5: 109-13.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 LaRue SM, Withrow SJ, Powers BE, Wrigley RH, Gillette EL, Schwarz PD, Straw RC, Richter SL. Limb-sparing treatment for osteosarcoma in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1989; (195) 1734-44.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mankin HJ, Gebhardt MM, Jennings IC, Springfield DS, Tomford WW. Long-term results of allograft replacement in the management of bone tumors. Clin Orthop 1996; 324: 86-97.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Misdorp W, Hart AAM. Some prognostic and epidemiologic factors in canine osteosarcoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 1979; 62: 537-45.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 O'Brien MG, Straw RC, Withrow SJ. Recent advances in the treatment of canine appendicular osteosarcoma. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1993; 15: 939-47.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Olson PN, Everson LI, Griffiths HJ. Staging of musculoskeletal tumors. Radiol Clin North Am 1994; 32 (01) 151-62.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ozaki T, Hillman A, Bettin D, Wuisman P, Winkelmann W. Intramedullary, antibioticloaded, cemented, massive allografts for skeletal reconstruction. Twenty-six cases compared with 19 uncemented allografts. Acta Orthop Scandinavia 1997; 68 (04) 387-91.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Phillips L, Parker RB, Bloomberg MS. Cortical bone allografts. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1988; 10 (10) 1167-76.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Roe SC, Milthorpe BK, Schindhelm K, Howlett CR. Incorporation of chemically modified and radiation-sterilized cancellous bone allografts. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1995; 8: 163-9.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Roe SC, Pijanowski GJ, Johnson AL. Biomechanical properties of canine cortical bone allografts: Effects of preparation and storage. Am J Vet Res 1988; 49: 873-7.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Straw RC, Powers BE, Withrow SJ. The effect of intramedullary polymethylmethacrylate on healing of intercalary cortical allografts in a canine model. J Orthop Res 1992; 10: 434-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Straw RC, Withrow SJ. Limb-sparing surgery versus amputation for dogs with bone tumors. Vet Clin North Am [Small Animal Pract] 1996; 26 (01) 135-43.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Straw RC, Withrow SJ, Douple EB, Brekke JH, Cooper MF, Schwarz PD, Greco DS, Powers BE. Effects of cis-diaminedichloroplatinum II released from D,L-polylactic acid implanted adjacent to cortical allografts in dogs. J Orthop Res 1994; 12 (06) 871-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Tshamala M, van Bree H, Mattheeuws D. Biomechanical properties of ethylene oxide sterilized and cryoperserved cortical bone allografts. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1994; 7: 25-30.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Withrow SJ, Straw RC, Douple EB, O'Brien MG, Powers BE, Jameson VJ, Lafferty M, Cooper MF, Kirpensteijn J, Brekke JH. Biodegradable polymer with cisplatin for treatment of canine osteosarcoma. Proc Vet Cancer Soc 1992; 12: 68-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar