Iliac Bone Harvesting Techniques for Bone Reconstruction. Comparative Study Between Tricortical Bone Harvesting vs Trapdoor Technique.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of trapdoor-procedure-based bone harvesting and tricortical iliac bone harvesting on the iliac bone-graft donor site pain experienced by patients and their clinical effects. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using the clinical data of 65 patients with tibial plateau fractures who received autologous iliac bone-supporting grafts in two hospitals between January 2014 and January 2019. The patients who received trapdoor-procedure-based bone harvesting (34 cases) were in the experimental group, and those who received tricortical iliac bone harvesting (31 cases) were in the control group. This study compared differences in iliac bone-graft donor site incision length, intraoperative blood loss, amount of bones harvested, operation time, and postoperative complications between the two bone-harvesting methods. Subsequently, it evaluated the pain experienced by the two patient groups in their iliac bone-graft donor sites and their clinical effects. RESULTS: One week after surgery, the differences between the iliac bone-graft donor site pain score (measured using SF-MPQ-2) of the experimental group and the control group were not statistically different. However, 3 weeks, 5 weeks, and 3 months after surgery, the iliac bone-graft donor site pain scores of the experimental group were significantly lower than those of the control group. The iliac bone-graft donor site incision length and operation time of the experimental group were not significantly different from those of the control group. However, the iliac bone-graft donor site intraoperative blood loss, amount of bones harvested and the incidence of complications of the experimental group were significantly lower than those of the control group. CONCLUSION: Trapdoor-procedure-based bone harvesting has lower donor site pain, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative complications. However, for bone grafting in regions with significant bone loss, tricortical iliac bone harvesting remains the optimal option.

2-Ethyl-6-methyl-anilinium 4-methyl-benzene-sulfonate.

The title compound, C(9)H(14)N(+)·C(7)H(7)SO(3) (-), contains a 2-ethyl-6-methyl-anilinium cation and a 4-methyl-benzene-sulfonic anion. The cations are anchored between the anions through N-H⋯O hydrogen bonds. Electrostatic and van der Waals inter-actions, as well as hydrogen bonds, maintain the structural cohesion.

1-(4-Chloro-phen-yl)-4,4-dimethyl-pent-1-en-3-one.

In the title compound, C(13)H(15)ClO, the carbonyl and ethenyl groups are not coplanar with benzene ring system, forming dihedral angles of 35.37 (5) and 36.27 (11)°, respectively. The mol-ecules are packed in an offset face-to-face arrangement showing π-π stacking inter-actions involving the benzene rings [centroid-centroid distance = 3.586 (4) Å].

8-Chloro-2-methyl-quinoline.

In the title compound, C(10)H(8)ClN, the crystal packing shows π-π stacking between the heterocyclic ring and the aromatic ring, with a centroid-centroid distance of 3.819 Å. The crystal studied was a racemic twin, the ratio of the twin components being 0.65 (7):0.35 (7).

8-Bromo-2-methyl-quinoline.

In the crystal structure of the title compound, C(10)H(8)BrN, the dihedral angle between the two six-membered rings of the quinoline system is 0.49 (16)°. The mol-ecules are packed in a face-to-face arrangement fashion, with a centroid-centroid distance of 3.76 Šbetween the benzene and pyridine rings of adjacent mol-ecules. No hydrogen bonding is found in the crystal structure.