Implant-delivered Alendronate Causes a Dose-dependent Response on Net Bone Formation Around Porous Titanium Implants in Canines
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Bony fixation of cementless orthopaedic implants is not always achieved, particularly in challenging scenarios such as revision surgery, trauma, and tumor reconstruction. An adjunct therapy for improving porous implant fixation could improve the reliability and durability of these reconstructive procedures. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this study, we asked whether there is a positive and dose-dependent effect of the local release of the bisphosphonate alendronate from (1) alendronate/hydroxyapatite (HA) porous-coated titanium implants compared with bare metal porous controls; and (2) alendronate/HA on porous-coated titanium implants compared with HA-coated porous controls with respect to extent of bone ingrowth, bone apposition, and periimplant bone formation in a canine model? METHODS: Three-dimensional printed porous-coated cylindrical implants coated with three different doses (0.02, 0.06, and 0.18 mg/cm(2)) of alendronate were inserted bilaterally in the intramedullary canal of the proximal femora of 15 adult mongrel dogs (age range, 3-9 years; mean, 5 years) weighing between 36 kg and 60 kg (mean, 43 kg). In each dog, an implant coated with HA and one of three different doses of alendronate was inserted on one side while the contralateral femur had a bare metal porous control implant and an identical control implant with a coating of HA. The dose effect of locally released alendronate on the extent of bone ingrowth, bone apposition, and periimplant bone was assessed by backscattered electron microscopy of three pairs of cross-sections taken from each implant at 12 weeks after surgery. A linear mixed model was used to perform the statistical analyses to account for the correlation in the data resulting from the multiple measures performed on each dog. RESULTS: Compared with paired bare metal controls, periimplant bone increased by 92% (p = 0.007), and 114% (p < 0.001) in the femora with the alendronate implants with a dose of 0.06 mg/cm(2), or 0.18 mg/cm(2), respectively. At a dose of 0.02 mg/cm(2), there was no difference (46% change; p = 0.184, with the numbers available). The comparison of the alendronate-dosed implants with their HA-coated controls showed that the intermediate dose of 0.06 mg/cm(2) alendronate had the greatest effect on net bone formation. Bone apposition was enhanced with the 0.06-mg/cm(2) alendronate femoral implants (82%; p = 0.008), although there was no change in bone ingrowth (37% change; p = 0.902, with the numbers available). When compared with the HA-coated control implants, the greatest effect of the alendronate-dosed implants was the increased amount of periimplant bone at the intermediate dose of 0.06-mg/cm(2) (108%, p = 0.009). There was no effect of the low (0.02-mg/cm(2)) and high (0.18-mg/cm(2)) alendronate-dosed implants (4%, and 6%, respectively; p = 0.321, p = 0.502). Overall, all three alendronate-dosed implants revealed little to no effect on bone ingrowth compared with the HA-coated control implants. CONCLUSIONS: The local release of alendronate from a three-dimensional printed porous-coated implant from the three doses studied showed an overall improvement in bone apposition and periimplant bone at the intermediate dose compared with bare metal or with HA-coated controls, although the effect was more pronounced compared with bare metal. Long-term studies to show the effects of localized alendronate delivery and mechanical fixation would be the next step for future studies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Local release of alendronate from a three-dimensional printed porous-coated implant may improve the reliability of cementless fixation of currently available porous-coated bare metal implants.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».