Bioactive glass S53P4 vs. autologous bone graft for filling defects in patients with chronic osteomyelitis and infected non-unions - a single center experience.

Introduction: The goals of osteomyelitis therapy are successful control of infection and reconstruction of the bone. The gold standard for filling defects is the autologous bone graft. Bioactive glass S53P4 is an inorganic bone substitute. We compared the outcome of using bioactive glass (BAG) versus autologous bone graft (AB) in patients with infected non-union. Methods: Patients with chronic osteomyelitis and infected non-union who received either bioactive glass or autologous bone grafts between 2013 and 2017 were analyzed retrospectively. The primary endpoint was successful control of infection during follow-up. Secondary endpoints were bone healing, functional outcome, and occurrence of complications. Results: Eighty-three patients were analyzed (BAG n = 51 , AB n = 32 ). Twenty-one patients experienced reinfection (BAG n = 15 , 29 %; AB n = 6 , 19 %). Seventy-eight patients achieved full weight bearing (BAG n = 47 , 92 %; AB n = 31 , 97 %). Sixty-four patients had complete bone healing at the end of the follow-up period (BAG n = 39 , 77 %; AB n = 25 , 78 %). There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to the primary or secondary endpoints. Patients with multidrug-resistant pathogens had a significantly higher rate of incomplete bone healing ( p = 0 .033) and a 3-fold higher risk of complications in both groups. Conclusions: Bioactive glass appears to be a suitable bone substitute not only for successful control of infection and defect filling but also for bone healing in cases of infected non-union. In our study, bioactive glass was neither superior nor inferior to autologous bone graft with regard to the primary and secondary endpoints. Further studies with larger numbers of patients are required.

C-Nail versus plate osteosynthesis in displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures-a comparative retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Locking plate osteosynthesis via an L-shaped lateral approach is the gold standard in treating displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures. High complication rates are known for this approach. The most frequent complications are wound edge necrosis and superficial wound infections. To reduce complication rates, a locking intramedullary nail (C-Nail) was developed that can be implanted minimally invasively via a sinus tarsi approach. We compared the postoperative complication rate and the outcome of plate osteosynthesis versus C-Nail in displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures. METHODS: All patients with calcaneal fractures who received osteosynthesis with either plate or C-Nail between January 2016 and October 2019 in our institution were retrospectively analyzed. A subgroup analysis was performed with matched pairs (matching Sanders type, age, Böhler's angle postoperative in normal range, 33 pairs). Endpoints were postoperative complication rate, bone healing, full weight-bearing and functional outcome. Treatment groups were compared using Fisher's exact test for binary data, and Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous data. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: One hundred and one calcaneal fractures were included (C-Nail n = 52, plate n = 49). Patients with C-Nail developed significantly less postoperative complications (p = 0.008), especially wound edge necrosis (p < 0.001). Screw malposition was found more often in the C-Nail group. The rates of achieving full weight-bearing as well as bone healing were comparable in both groups, but in each case significant faster in the C-nail subgroup. The results of the matched-pairs analysis were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: The postoperative complication rate was significantly lower in the C-Nail group. The C-Nail appears to be a successful alternative in the treatment of calcaneal fractures, even in Sanders IV fractures because of the minimal-invasive implantation as well as the high primary stability. Long-term analysis of this new implant including elaboration on functional outcome is planned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS) DRKS00020395 . Date of registration 3 January 2020.