Comparison of Individual Tissue-Engineered Bones and Allogeneic Bone in Treating Bone Defects: A Long-Term Follow-Up Study

Abstract

The treatment of bone defects has always been a challenge for orthopedic surgeons. The development of tissue engineering technology provides a novel method for repairing bone defects and has been used in animal experiments and clinical trials. However, there are few clinical studies on comparing the long-term outcomes of tissue-engineered bones (TEBs) and other bone grafts in treating bone defects, and the long-term efficiency of TEBs remains controversial. Therefore, a study designed by us was aimed to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of individual tissue-engineered bones (iTEBs) and allogeneic bone granules (ABGs) in treating bone defects caused by curettage of benign bone tumors and tumor-like lesions. From September 2003 to November 2009, 48 patients who received tumor curettage and bone grafting were analyzed with a mean follow-up of 122 mo (range 60 to 173 mo). Based on implant style, patients were divided into groups of iTEBs (n = 23) and ABGs (n = 25). Postoperatively, the healing time, healing quality, incidence of complications, and functional scores were compared between the two groups. The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society functional evaluation system and Activities of Daily Living Scale scores were significantly improved in both groups with no significant difference. The average healing time of ABGs was longer than that of iTEBs (P < 0.05). At the final follow-up, iTEBs had a better performance in the bone healing quality evaluated by modified Neer classification (P < 0.05). In the group of iTEBs, the complication and reoperation rate was lower than that in the group of ABGs, with no tumorigenesis or immune rejection observed. In summary, for treating bone defects caused by tumor curettage, iTEBs were safe, effective, and tagged with more rapid healing speed, better healing outcome, and lower complication and reoperation rate, in comparison with ABGs.