Autologous cartilage and fibrin sealant may be superior to conventional fat grafting in preventing physeal bone bridge formation – a pilot study in porcines. (2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Abood, Ahmed A.; Møller-Madsen, Bjarne; Shiguetomi-Medina, Juan Manuel; Stødkilde-Jørgensen, Hans; Foldager, Casper; Rahbek, Ole
• Is Part Of: Journal of children's orthopaedics. Volume 14:Number 5(2020)
• Page Start: 459
• Page End: 465
• Publication Date: 2020
• Subjects: bone bridges -- cartilage graft -- fat graft; Pediatric orthopedics -- Periodicals; 618.927005
• DOI: 10.1302/1863-2548.14.200024
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1863-2521

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: The article compares physeal recovery after insertion of autologous cartilage and a conventional fat graft in a standardized porcine physeal gap model. Presence of a bone bridge was the primary outcome. Methods: Ten porcines in two groups of five were included in a paired design. A standardized physeal gap in the distal femur was made in all animals. One group (n = 5) was randomized for deposition of autologous cartilage and a Tisseel ® or Tisseel ® alone. The autologous cartilage was harvested from the femoral articular surface. The other group was randomized for fat grafting or no grafts at all. All animals were housed for 14 weeks. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed at 14 weeks prior to euthanasia. The physis was harvested for histology. Results: MRI – Three bone bridges were seen in the fat grafted gaps. All empty gaps formed a bone bridge. No gaps filled with autologous cartilage and Tisseel ® resulted in bone bridges. One gap filled with Tisseel ® only caused a bone bridge. Histology – The cartilage grafted gaps recovered with physeal-like cartilaginous tissue in histological analysis. Conclusions: Fat grafts seems ineffective in preventing bone bridges. The use of autologous cartilage may be superior to the current treatment. However, donor site complications were not investigated. The study serves as a proof of concept study and requires further investigation. Level of evidence: III