Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our study aim was to compare allogeneic cancellous bone (ACB) and synthetic or highly-processed xenogeneic bone substitutes (SBS) in the treatment of skeletal defects in orthopedic surgery. METHODS: 232 patients treated for bony lesions with ACB (n = 116) or SBS (n = 116) within a 10-year time period were included in this case-control study. Furthermore, both materials were seeded with human osteoblasts (hOB, n = 10) and analyzed by histology, for viability (AlamarBlue®) and protein expression activity (Luminex®). RESULTS: The complication rate was 14.2 %, proportion of defects without bony healing 3.6 %; neither outcome parameter differed comparing the intervention groups. Failed consolidation correlated with an increase in complications (p < 0.03). The rate of complications was further highly significant in association with the location of use (p < 0.001), but did not depend on age, ASA risk classification, BMI, smoking behavior or type of insurance. However, those factors did significantly influence the bony healing rate (p < 0.02). Complication and consolidation rates were independent of gender and the filling substances employed within the different locations. Histological examination revealed similar bone structures, whereas cell remnants were apparent only in the allografts. Both materials were biocompatible in-vitro, and seeded with human osteoblasts. The cells remained vital over the 3-week culture period and produced microscopically typical bone matrix. We observed initially increased expression of osteocalcin, osteopontin, and osteoprotegerin as well as leptin and adiponectin secretion declining after 1 week, especially in the ACB group. CONCLUSION: Although both investigated materials appeared to be similarly suitable for the treatment of skeletal lesions in-vivo and in-vitro, outcome was decisively influenced by other factors such as the site of use or epidemiological parameters.