Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2024; 59(01): e1-e9
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1776021
Artigo de Atualização
Asami

Bone Regenerate Evaluation Methods[*]

Article in several languages: português | English
Gracielle Silva Cardoso 
1   Serviço de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital Governador Celso Ramos, Florianópolis, SC, Brasil
,
Renato Amorim 
1   Serviço de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital Governador Celso Ramos, Florianópolis, SC, Brasil
› Author Affiliations Financial Support The authors declare that they have not received any financial support from public, commercial, or not-for-profit sources to conduct the present study.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Since its introduction by Ilizarov, the distraction osteogenesis technique has been used to treat trauma-related conditions, infections, bone tumors, and congenital diseases, either as methods of bone transport or elongation. One of the major dilemmas for the orthopedic surgeon who performs osteogenic distraction is establishing a reproducible method of assessing the progression of the osteogenesis, enabling the early detection of regenerate failures, in order to effectively interfere during treatment, and to determine the appropriate time to remove the external fixator. Several quantitative monitoring methods to evaluate the structural recovery and biomechanical properties of the bone regenerate at different stages, as well as the bone healing process, are under study. These methods can reveal data on bone metabolism, stiffness, bone mineral content, and bone mineral density. The present review comprehensively summarizes the most recent techniques to assess bone healing during osteogenic distraction, including conventional radiography and pixel values in digital radiology, ultrasonography, bone densitometry and scintigraphy, quantitative computed tomography, biomechanical evaluation, biochemical markers, and mathematical models. We believe it is crucial to know the different methods currently available, and we understand that using several monitoring methods simultaneously can be an ideal solution, pointing to a future direction in the follow-up of osteogenic distraction.

Keywords

quantitative evaluation - osteogenic distraction - biomechanical phenomena - external fixation - X-ray

* Work developed at the Orthopedics and Traumatology Service, Hospital Governador Celso Ramos, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.




Publication History

Received: 19 September 2022

Accepted: 12 April 2023

Article published online:
21 March 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Alzahrani MM, Anam E, AlQahtani SM, Makhdom AM, Hamdy RC. Strategies of enhancing bone regenerate formation in distraction osteogenesis. Connect Tissue Res 2018; 59 (01) 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hamanishi C, Yasuwaki Y, Kikuchi H, Tanaka S, Tamura K. Classification of the callus in limb lengthening. Radiographic study of 35 limbs. Acta Orthop Scand 1992; 63 (04) 430-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Isaac D, Fernandez H, Song HR. et al. Callus patterns in femur lengthening using a monolateral external fixator. Skeletal Radiol 2008; 37 (04) 329-334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Muzaffar N, Hafeez A, Modi H, Song HR. Callus patterns in femoral lengthening over an intramedullary nail. J Orthop Res 2011; 29 (07) 1106-1113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Archer L, Dobbe A, Chhina H, García HV, Cooper A. Inter- and Intra-observer reliability of the pixel value ratio, Ru Li's and Donnan's classifications of regenerate quality in pediatric limb lengthening. J Limb Lengthening Reconstr 2018; 4 (01) 26
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Singh S, Song HR, Venkatesh KP. et al. Analysis of callus pattern of tibia lengthening in achondroplasia and a novel method of regeneration assessment using pixel values. Skeletal Radiol 2010; 39 (03) 261-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kolbeck S, Bail H, Weiler A, Windhagen H, Haas N, Raschke M. Digital radiography. A predictor of regenerate bone stiffness in distraction osteogenesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999; (366) 221-228
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Donnan LT, Saleh M, Rigby AS, McAndrew A. Radiographic assessment of bone formation in tibia during distraction osteogenesis. J Pediatr Orthop 2002; 22 (05) 645-651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Skaggs DL, Leet AI, Money MD, Shaw BA, Hale JM, Tolo VT. Secondary fractures associated with external fixation in pediatric femur fractures. J Pediatr Orthop 1999; 19 (05) 582-586
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Fischgrund J, Paley D, Suter C. Variables affecting time to bone healing during limb lengthening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994; (301) 31-37
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Anand A, Feldman DS, Patel RJ. et al. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of radiographic evidence of bone healing at osteotomy sites. J Pediatr Orthop B 2006; 15 (04) 271-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ocksrider J, Boden AL, Greif DN. et al. Radiographic evaluation of reconstructive surgery for segmental bone defects: What the radiologist should know about distraction osteogenesis and bone grafting. Clin Imaging 2020; 67: 15-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Saran N, Hamdy RC. DEXA as a predictor of fixator removal in distraction osteogenesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466 (12) 2955-2961
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hazra S, Song HR, Biswal S. et al. Quantitative assessment of mineralization in distraction osteogenesis. Skeletal Radiol 2008; 37 (09) 843-847
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Shyam AK, Singh SU, Modi HN, Song HR, Lee SH, An H. Leg lengthening by distraction osteogenesis using the Ilizarov apparatus: a novel concept of tibia callus subsidence and its influencing factors. Int Orthop 2009; 33 (06) 1753-1759
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mamada K, Nakamura K, Matsushita T. et al. The diameter of callus in leg lengthening: 28 tibial lengthenings in 14 patients with achondroplasia. Acta Orthop Scand 1998; 69 (03) 306-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Zhao L, Fan Q, Venkatesh KP, Park MS, Song HR. Objective guidelines for removing an external fixator after tibial lengthening using pixel value ratio: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (12) 3321-3326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Starr KA, Fillman R, Raney EM. Reliability of radiographic assessment of distraction osteogenesis site. J Pediatr Orthop 2004; 24 (01) 26-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Eyres KS, Bell MJ, Kanis JA. Methods of assessing new bone formation during limb lengthening. Ultrasonography, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and radiography compared. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993; 75 (03) 358-364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Minematsu K, Tsuchiya H, Taki J, Tomita K. Blood flow measurement during distraction osteogenesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; (347) 229-235
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Romanowski CA, Underwood AC, Sprigg A. Reduction of radiation doses in leg lengthening procedures by means of audit and computed tomography scanogram techniques. Br J Radiol 1994; 67 (803) 1103-1107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Salmas MG, Nikiforidis G, Sakellaropoulos G, Kosti P, Lambiris E. Estimation of artifacts induced by the Ilizarov device in quantitative computed tomographic analysis of tibiae. Injury 1998; 29 (09) 711-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Maffulli N, Cheng JC, Sher A, Ng BK, Ng E. Bone mineralization at the callotasis site after completion of lengthening. Bone 1999; 25 (03) 333-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 De Backer AI, Mortelé KJ, De Keulenaer BL. Picture archiving and communication system–Part one: Filmless radiology and distance radiology. JBR-BTR 2004; 87 (05) 234-241
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Shim JS, Chung KH, Ahn JM. Value of measuring bone density serial changes on a picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) monitor in distraction osteogenesis. Orthopedics 2002; 25 (11) 1269-1272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Liu Q, Liu Z, Guo H, Liang J, Zhang Y. The progress in quantitative evaluation of callus during distraction osteogenesis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022; 23 (01) 490
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kokkinou E, Boniatis I, Costaridou L, Saridis A, Panagiotopoulos E, Panayiotakis G. Monitoring of bone regeneration process by means of texture analysis. J Instrum 2009; 4 (09) 09007-P09007
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Vaccaro C, Busetto R, Bernardini D, Anselmi C, Zotti A. Accuracy and precision of computer-assisted analysis of bone density via conventional and digital radiography in relation to dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Am J Vet Res 2012; 73 (03) 381-384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Roux C, Dougados M. Quantitative ultrasound in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2000; 12 (04) 336-345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Derbyshire ND, Simpson AH. A role for ultrasound in limb lengthening. Br J Radiol 1992; 65 (775) 576-580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Haubruck P, Heller R, Tanner MC. et al. A Preliminary Study of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) and Cytokine Expression Analysis (CEA) as Early Predictors for the Outcome of Tibial Non-Union Therapy. Diagnostics (Basel) 2018; 8 (03) E55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Augat P, Morgan EF, Lujan TJ, MacGillivray TJ, Cheung WH. Imaging techniques for the assessment of fracture repair. Injury 2014; 45 (Suppl. 02) S16-S22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Young JW, Kostrubiak IS, Resnik CS, Paley D. Sonographic evaluation of bone production at the distraction site in Ilizarov limb-lengthening procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990; 154 (01) 125-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kanis JA, Glüer CC. An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Committee of Scientific Advisors, International Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int 2000; 11 (03) 192-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Nutton RW, Fitzgerald Jr RH, Kelly PJ. Early dynamic bone-imaging as an indicator of osseous blood flow and factors affecting the uptake of 99mTc hydroxymethylene diphosphonate in healing bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985; 67 (05) 763-770
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Kawano M, Taki J, Tsuchiya H, Tomita K, Tonami N. Predicting the outcome of distraction osteogenesis by 3-phase bone scintigraphy. J Nucl Med 2003; 44 (03) 369-374
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Engelke K. Quantitative Computed Tomography-Current Status and New Developments. J Clin Densitom 2017; 20 (03) 309-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Turner CH, Burr DB. Basic biomechanical measurements of bone: a tutorial. Bone 1993; 14 (04) 595-608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Martin DE, Severns AE, Kabo JMJM. Determination of mechanical stiffness of bone by pQCT measurements: correlation with non-destructive mechanical four-point bending test data. J Biomech 2004; 37 (08) 1289-1293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Cardoso GS, Amorim R, Penha FM, Horn FJ, Roesler CR, Marques JL. Biomechanical Analysis of the Behaviour at the Metaphyseal-Diaphyseal Junction of Complex Tibial Plateau Fractures Using Two Circular Fixator Configurations. Strateg Trauma Limb Reconstr 2020; 15 (03) 138-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Sferra J, Kambic HE, Schickendantz MS, Watson JT. Biomechanical analysis of canine bone lengthened by the callotasis method. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995; (311) 222-226
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Lineham B, Stewart T, Ward J, Harwood P. Measurement of wire deflection on loading may indicate union in ilizarov constructs: a pilot study. Strateg Trauma Limb Reconstr 2021; 16 (03) 132-137
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Wu J, Liu L, Hu H, Gao Z, Lu S. Bioinformatic analysis and experimental identification of blood biomarkers for chronic nonunion. J Orthop Surg Res 2020; 15 (01) 208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Zhu Z, Zhou H, Wang Y, Yao X. Associations between bone turnover markers and bone mineral density in older adults. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2021; 29 (01) 2309499020987653
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Kumar M, Shelke D, Shah S. Prognostic potential of markers of bone turnover in delayed-healing tibial diaphyseal fractures. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2019; 45 (01) 31-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Fink B, Feldkamp J, Fox F, Hofmann B, Singer J, Krieger M. Time course of osteocalcin, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, and C-terminal procollagen peptide during callus distraction. J Pediatr Orthop 2001; 21 (02) 246-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Leung KS, Lee KM, Chan CW, Mak A, Fung KP. Mechanical characterization of regenerated osseous tissue during callotasis and its related biological phenomenon. Life Sci 2000; 66 (04) 327-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Reina-Romo E, Gómez-Benito MJ, García-Aznar JM, Domínguez J, Doblaré M. Modeling distraction osteogenesis: analysis of the distraction rate. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 2009; 8 (04) 323-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Li R, Saleh M, Yang L, Coulton L. Radiographic classification of osteogenesis during bone distraction. J Orthop Res 2006; 24 (03) 339-347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Ilizarov GA. The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues. Part I. The influence of stability of fixation and soft-tissue preservation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; (238) 249-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Reina-Romo E, Gómez-Benito MJ, Domínguez J. et al. Effect of the fixator stiffness on the young regenerate bone after bone transport: computational approach. J Biomech 2011; 44 (05) 917-923
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Claes LE, Heigele CA. Magnitudes of local stress and strain along bony surfaces predict the course and type of fracture healing. J Biomech 1999; 32 (03) 255-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Aronson J. Temporal and spatial increases in blood flow during distraction osteogenesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994; (301) 124-131
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Mora-Macías J, Reina-Romo E, Domínguez J. Model of the distraction callus tissue behavior during bone transport based in experiments in vivo. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2016; 61: 419-430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Catagni M. The radiographic classification of bone regenerate during distraction. In: Operative Principles of Ilizarov. Philadelphia: Williams & Wilkins; 1991: 53-57
    Google Scholar
  • 56 Minty I, Maffulli N, Hughes TH, Shaw DG, Fixsen JA. Radiographic features of limb lengthening in children. Acta Radiol 1994; 35 (06) 555-559
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Aronson J, Shen X. Experimental healing of distraction osteogenesis comparing metaphyseal with diaphyseal sites. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994; (301) 25-30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Tirawanish P, Eamsobhana P. Prediction of callus subsidence in distraction osteogenesis using callus formation scoring system: preliminary study. Orthop Surg 2018; 10 (02) 121-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar