Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital, Oswestry, UK.
Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, The Princess Royal Hospital, Apley Castle, Telford, UK.
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2024;91(3):143-150. doi: 10.55095/achot2024/020.
Vascularised bone grafting (VBG) and non-vascularised bone grafting (NVBG) are crucial biological reconstructive procedures extensively employed in the management of bone tumours. The principal aim of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of the post-resection outcomes associated with the utilisation of vascularised and non-vascularised bone grafts.
A comprehensive and systematic literature review spanning the years 2013 to 2023 was meticulously executed, utilising prominent online databases including PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were restricted to comparative articles that specifically addressed outcomes pertaining to defect restoration following bone tumour resection via vascularised and non-vascularised bone grafting techniques. The quality of research methodologies was assessed using the Oxford Quality Scoring System for randomised trials and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomised comparative studies. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 24. Key outcome measures encompassed the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society Score (MSTS), bone union duration, and the incidence of post-operative complications.
This analysis incorporated four clinical publications, enrolling a total of 178 participants (comprising 92 males and 86 females), with 90 patients subjected to VBG and 88 to NVBG procedures. The primary endpoints of interest encompassed MSTS scores and bone union durations. Although no statistically significant distinction was observed in the complication rates between the two cohorts, it is noteworthy that VBG exhibited a markedly superior bone union rate (P<0.001).
Our systematic evaluation revealed that VBG facilitates expedited bone union, thereby contributing to accelerated patient recovery. Notably, complication rates and functional outcomes were comparable between the VBG and NVBG groups. Moreover, the correlation between bone union duration and functional scores following VBG and NVBG merits further investigation.
reconstruction techniques, vascularised bone grafting, non-vascularised bone grafting, bone tumor, resection.
带血管骨移植(VBG)和不带血管骨移植(NVBG)是广泛应用于骨肿瘤治疗的重要生物学重建手术。本研究的主要目的是对使用带血管和不带血管骨移植的术后结果进行比较分析。
我们进行了一项全面而系统的文献回顾,时间跨度为 2013 年至 2023 年,使用了包括 PubMed/Medline、Google Scholar 和 Cochrane Library 在内的主要在线数据库。纳入标准仅限于专门讨论通过 VBG 和 NVBG 技术治疗骨肿瘤切除后缺损恢复的比较文章。使用 Oxford 随机试验质量评分系统和 Newcastle Ottawa 非随机比较研究量表评估研究方法的质量。使用 SPSS 版本 24 进行数据分析。主要结局指标包括肌肉骨骼肿瘤学会评分(MSTS)、骨愈合时间和术后并发症发生率。
这项分析纳入了四项临床研究出版物,共纳入 178 名参与者(包括 92 名男性和 86 名女性),其中 90 名患者接受了 VBG 治疗,88 名患者接受了 NVBG 治疗。主要研究终点包括 MSTS 评分和骨愈合时间。虽然两组之间的并发症发生率没有统计学上的显著差异,但值得注意的是,VBG 组的骨愈合率明显更高(P<0.001)。
我们的系统评价显示,VBG 促进了骨的快速愈合,从而加速了患者的康复。值得注意的是,VBG 和 NVBG 组的并发症发生率和功能结局相当。此外,VBG 和 NVBG 后骨愈合时间与功能评分之间的相关性值得进一步研究。
重建技术、带血管骨移植、不带血管骨移植、骨肿瘤、切除。