Journal List > J Korean Bone Joint Tumor Soc > v.16(1) > 1051978

Kim, Kim, Jang, Chung, and Jung: The Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma on Allograft Transplantation after Curettage in Benign Bone Tumor

Abstract

Purpose

This study was performed to evaluate the efficiency of Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for acceleration of bone healing process on allograft transplantation after curettage in benign bone tumor.

Materials and Methods

From December 2007 to February 2009, twenty-one patients who had benign bone tumor and underwent allograft transplantation after curettage were evaluated. Mean followup period was 14.6 months (range, 12-26 months). We compared with 13 cases of PRP group and 8 cases of non-PRP group in terms of size of lesion, bone resorption, amount of applied PRP and complications. The mean age at surgery was 23.6 years (range, 4-73 years). The most common diagnosis was simple bone cyst (7) followed by enchondroma (4), giant cell tumor (3), undifferentiated benign bone tumor (3) and so on.

Results

The mean size of lesion was 33.5 cm3 (range, 2.3-181.9 cm3) (29.4 cm3 in PRP group and 40.2 cm3 in non-PRP group). The mean volume of injected PRP was 7.4 cc (range, 3-12 cc). Bone union started at 3.0 months (range, 1.5-5.8 months) in PRP group and 5.3 months (range, 4-8 months) in non-PRP group. Three cases for each group were excluded due to recurrence and pathologic fracture. One patient had febrile episode 3 weeks later after surgery which subsided with antibiotics.

Conclusion

The PRP could accelerate bone union in allograft transplantation after curettage of benign bone tumor. Furthermore, we expect that PRP can accelerate bone union in fracture or non-union.

REFERENCES

1. Delloye C, Cnockaert N, Cornu O. Bone substituetes in 2003: an overview. Acta Orthop Belg. 2003; 69:1–8.
2. Giannoudis PV, Dinopoulos H, Tsiridis E. Bone substitutes: an update. Injury. 2005; 36(Suppl):20–7.
crossref
3. Greenwald AS, Boden SD, Goldberg VM, Khan Y, Laurencin CT, Rosier RN. Bone-graft substitutes: facts, fictions, and applications. J Bone Joint Surg. 2001; 83:98–103.
crossref
4. Bauer TW, Smith ST. Bioactive materials in orthopaedic surgery: overview and regulatory considerations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002; 395:11–22.
crossref
5. Betz RR. Limitations of autograft and allograft: new synthetic solutions. Orthopedics. 2002; 25(Suppl 5):561–70.
crossref
6. Bauer TW, Muschler GF. Bone graft materials. An overview of the basic science. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000; 371:10–27.
7. Bostman O, Pihlajamaki H. Clinical biocompatibility of biodegradable orthopaedic implants for internal fixation: a review. Biomaterials. 2000; 21:2615–21.
8. Bouxsein ML, Turek TJ, Blake Ca, et al. Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 accelerates healing in a rabbit ulnar osteotomy model. J Bone Joint Surg. 2001; 83:219–30.
crossref
9. Yeh LC, Unda R, Lee JC. Osteogenic protein-1 differentially regulates the mRNA expression of bone morphogenetic proteins and their receptors in primary cultures of osteoblasts. J Cell Physiol. 2000; 185:87–97.
crossref
10. Marx RE, Carlson ER, Eichstaedt RM, Schimmele SR, Strauss JE, Georgeff KR. Platelet-rich plasma: growth factor enhancement for bone grafts. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Raiol Endod. 1998; 85:638–46.
11. Wrotniak M, Bielecki T, Gazdzik TS. Current opinion about using the platelet-rich gel in orthopaedics and trauma surgery. Orthop Traumatol Rehabil. 2007; 9:227–38.
12. Dallari D, Savarino L, Stagni C, et al. Enhanced tibial osteotomy healing with use of bone grafts supplemented with platelet gel or platelet gel and bone marrow stromal cells. J Bone Joint Surg. 2007; 89:2413–20.
crossref
13. Kitoh H, Kitakoji T, Tsuchiya H, et al. Transplantation of marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells and platelet-rich plasma during distraction osteogenesis - a preliminary result of three cases. Bone. 2004; 35:892–8.
14. Veillette CJ, McKe MD. Growth factors - BMPs, DBMs, and buffy coat products: are there any proven differences amongst them? Injury. 2007; 38(Suppl 1):38–48.
crossref
15. Pietrzak WS, Eppley BL. Platelet rich plasma: biology and new technology. J Craniofac Surg. 2005; 16:1043–54.
crossref
16. Marx RE. Platelet-rich plasma: evidence to support its use. Maxillofac Surg. 2004; 62:489–96.
crossref
17. Wilde AH, Schickendantz MS, Stulberg BN, Go RT. The incorporation of tibial allografts in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 1990; 72:815–24.
crossref
18. Stevenson S, Horowitz M. The response to bone allografts. J Bone Joint Surg. 1992; 74:939–50.
crossref

Figure 1.
Simple bone cyst of the proximal humerus of a 6-year-old patient. (A) The preoperative humerus AP radiograph. (B) PRP was applied after curettage and bone allograft transplantation. (C) Partial resorption of allograft and new trabeculae formation were observed 2.5 months later after operation.
jkbjts-16-8f1.tif
Table 1.
Details of the Patients in PRP Group
No Age Sex Dx. F/U (months) Union (months) Size (cm3) Bone (cc) PRP (cc) Result Cx.
1 73 M Enchondroma 16 Fail 30.4 30 5 Fracture  
2 24 M GCT 15 5.8 181.9 60 10    
3 11 M SBC 15 2 12.4 15 5    
4 4 M SBC 15 Fail 25.4 15 6 Recur  
5 14 F BBT 13 5 5.5 15 5   Fever
6 12 F SBC 14 3.5 3.7 15 5    
7 6 M SBC 12 2.5 21.2 30 4    
8 10 M SBC c ABC 13 Fail 31.3 30 5 Recur  
9 54 F SBC 12 1.5 15.6 15 3    
10 52 F SBC 14 1.5 8.3 15 12    
11 43 F Lipoma 12 1.5 10.6 30 12    
12 13 M NOF 13 3 8.6 30 12    
13 46 F Enchondroma 12 4 26.8 45 12    

PRP, platelet-rich plasma; Dx, diagnosis; Cx, complications; GCT, giant cell tumor; SBC, simple bone cyst; BBT, undifferentiated benign bone tumor; ABC, aneurysmal bone cyst; NOF, non-ossifying fibroma.

Table 2.
Details of the Patients in Non-PRP Group
No Age Sex Dx. F/U (months) Union (months) Size (cm3) Bone (cc) Result
1 14 M FD 14 Fail 68.2 30 Fracture
2 44 F BBT 16 6 49.7 30  
3 56 F Chondroma 12 4.5 6.1 30  
4 13 M SBC 13 8 34.3 30  
5 50 M Enchondroma 12 4 2.3 15  
6 28 M GCT 26 Fail 59.9 45 Recur
7 11 F SBC 24 Fail 37.1 15 Recur
8 8 M SBC 14 4 63.8 15  

FD, fibrous dysplasia; BBT, undifferentiated benign bone tumor; SBC, simple bone cyst; GCT, giant cell tumor.

Table 3.
Comparison of PRP and Non-PRP Groups
  PRP group Non-PRP group p-value
Age 27.8 28 0.836
Size of lesion (cm3) 29.4 40.2 0.726
Bone graft (cc) 26.5 26.3 0.567
Union (month) 30.3 5.3 0.022
TOOLS
Similar articles