Ross Leighton BSc MD FRCSC1, Kelly Trask BEng MSc CCRP1, Thomas A. Russell MD2, Mohit Bhandari MD MSc3 and Richard E. Buckley MD FRCSC4 1QEII Health Sciences Centre, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Halifax Infirmary, Halifax, NS, Canada 2University of Tennessee Campbell Clinic Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Eads, TN, USA 3Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada 4Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Periarticular fractures are common injuries that result from indirect coronal and/or direct axial compressive forces. As the patient ages, the fracture pattern is usually a split depression type without associated ligamentous injury. Surgical guidelines advocate anatomic reduction, re‐establishment of the long bone alignment, subchondral bone grafting to support the articular cartilage, and stable internal fixation.1 Metaphyseal fractures are among the most difficult fractures to treat. Depressed articular fragments can crush the underlying weak subchondral cancellous bone, leaving a void when the articular segments are reduced surgically. Potential long‐term problems including pain, post‐traumatic arthritis secondary to apoptosis of the chondrocyte, and limitation of motion and function might occur if joint surface subsidence cannot be prevented or at least limited. Russell et al. compared the treatment of subarticular bone defects in tibial plateau fractures with conventional autogenous iliac bone graft (AIBG) to bioabsorbable calcium phosphate paste (alpha‐BSM, Etex Corporation) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT).1 All fractures united in both groups within the same time periods. There was an unexpected statistically significant (p = 0.009, Fisher’s exact two‐tailed test) higher rate of articular subsidence in the AIBG group compared to the alpha‐BSM group. Subsidence of equal to or greater than 2 mm on the anteroposterior radiographs was found in 31% of patients in the AIBG group compared to 8% in the alpha‐BSM group in the final evaluation. This provided level I evidence that bioabsorbable calcium phosphate material, such as alpha‐BSM, appeared to be a better choice for the treatment of subarticular defects than AIBG in tibial plateau fractures. Johal et al. performed a similar RCT on os calcis fractures comparing open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) plus alpha‐BSM to ORIF alone in the treatment of calcaneal bone voids encountered after operative treatment of displaced intra‐articular fractures of the calcaneous.2 There was no difference between the groups in the degree of collapse of Bohler’s angle at six weeks and three months when compared to initial postoperative values. However, at six months the mean collapse of the alpha‐BSM and ORIF group was 5.6° (standard deviation [SD] 4.5) and ORIF alone was 9.1° (SD 5.8). This was statistically significant (p <0.01). Level I evidence suggests that the addition of calcium phosphate to internal fixation in periarticular fractures is more supportive than fixation alone or fixation with autologous bone graft. Although the radiographic outcomes were better with calcium phosphate, these studies were not powered to detect differences in patient‐reported outcome scores. Autogenous bone graft, typically from the iliac crest, has been stated in the past to be the gold standard of bone grafting. However, it is associated with donor site morbidity including chronic pain and wound complications.3–9 Calcium phosphate cement has increased compression strength and improved custom‐filling of bone defects. However, any alternative graft material should have a better risk/benefit profile than the current standard. Alternative grafting materials for filling fracture voids include allograft and synthetic bone materials. While using allograft avoids the donor site morbidity associated with autograft, it also can lead to complications including potential disease transmission, host–donor incompatibility, and possibly lower union rates.10–12 Therefore, synthetic bone materials, such as calcium phosphate bone cement, appear to be an attractive alternative. They perform better acutely and over the first year and lack the disadvantage of bone site morbidity or the potential for infection and disease transmission associated with allograft. There are several narrative review articles that address the use of bone grafting in fractures and trauma situations.3–16 In addition, Bajammal et al. have completed a meta‐analysis (level I evidence) of studies comparing calcium phosphate bone cement to bone graft.17 The meta‐analysis included 14 RCTs. The studies had documented outcomes that included pain, maintenance of fracture reduction, infection, and functional outcomes.
75
Calcium‐Based Bone Substitutes
Clinical scenario
Top three questions
Rationale
Clinical comment
Available literature and quality of the evidence
Findings
Resolution of clinical scenario
Question 2: In patients with a fracture requiring bone graft augmentation, does the use of calcium phosphate cement instead of autogenous iliac crest bone graft result in fewer complications?
Rationale
Clinical comment
Available literature and quality of the evidence
Findings
Related posts:
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
