A Comparative Analysis of Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 with a Demineralized Bone Matrix versus Iliac Crest Bone Graft for Secondary Alveolar Bone Grafts in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate: Review of 501 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Alveolar cleft reconstruction using iliac crest bone graft is considered standard of care for children with complete cleft lip and palate at the time of mixed dentition. Harvesting bone may result in donor-site morbidity and additional operating time and length of hospitalization. Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (rhBMP)-2 with a demineralized bone matrix is an alternative bone source for alveolar cleft reconstruction. The authors investigated the outcomes of rhBMP-2/demineralized bone matrix versus iliac crest bone graft for alveolar cleft reconstruction by reviewing postoperative surgical complications and cleft closure. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted for 258 rhBMP-2/demineralized bone matrix procedures (mean follow-up, 2.9 years) and 243 iliac crest bone graft procedures (mean follow-up, 4.1 years) on 414 patients over a 12-year period. The authors compared complications, canine eruption, and alveolar cleft closure between the two groups. RESULTS: In the rhBMP-2/demineralized bone matrix group, one patient required prolonged intubation because of intraoperative airway swelling not thought to be caused by rhBMP-2, 36 reported facial swelling and one required outpatient steroids as treatment, and 12 had dehiscence; however, half of these complications resolved without intervention. Twenty-three of the 228 rhBMP-2/demineralized bone matrix patients and 28 of the 242 iliac crest bone graft patients required repeated surgery for alveolar cleft repair. Findings for canine tooth eruption into the cleft site through the graft were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The rhBMP-2/demineralized bone matrix appears to be an acceptable alternative for alveolar cleft repair. The authors found no increase in serious adverse events with the use of this material. Local complications, such as swelling and minor wound dehiscence, predominantly improved without intervention. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Microsurgical Lower Extremity Reconstruction in the Subacute Period: A Safe Alternative.

BACKGROUND: Microsurgical reconstruction of the lower extremity is an integral part of the limb salvage algorithm. Success is defined by a pain-free functional extremity, with a healed fracture and sufficient durable soft tissue coverage. Although early flap coverage of lower extremity fractures is an important goal, it is not always feasible because of multiple factors. Between the years 2000 and 2010, approximately 50% of patients at Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center requiring microsurgical reconstruction did not receive soft tissue coverage until more than 15 days postinjury secondary to primary trauma, physiologic instability, patient comorbidities, or orthopedic and plastic surgery operative backlog. The objective of our study was to evaluate outcomes in patients who underwent microsurgical reconstruction of the lower extremity, in relation to the timing of reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed for patients requiring immediate lower extremity reconstruction from January 2000 to December 2009 at LAC + USC. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were identified in this study. The most common mechanisms of injury were motorcycle, motor vehicle, and fall accidents. Eighty-six percent of injuries were open and 74% were comminuted. The distal 1/3 of the tibia, including the tibial pilon, was the most common location of injury. When comparing patients reconstructed in less than 15 days versus greater than or equal to 15 days, there was no significant difference in rates of flap failure, osteomyelitis, bony union, or ambulation. CONCLUSION: Microsurgical reconstruction of the lower extremity in the subacute period is a safe alternative.