Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Comparisons of Efficacy between Autograft and Allograft on Defect Repair In Vivo in Normal and Osteoporotic Rats

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Documents

DOI

  1. Vascular endothelial growth factor and mesenchymal stem cells revealed similar bone formation to allograft in a sheep model

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Fitness Effects of 10-Month Frequent Low-Volume Ball Game Training or Interval Running for 8-10-Year-Old School Children

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Expression of C4.4A in an In Vitro Human Tissue-Engineered Skin Model

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Self-Rated Health as a Predictor of Death after Two Years: The Importance of Physical and Mental Wellbeing Postintensive Care

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Should Pertrochanteric and Subtrochanteric Fractures Be Treated with a Short or Long Intramedullary Nail? A Multicenter Cohort Study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Evaluation of the Oxford Hip Score: Does it still have content validity? Interviews of total hip arthroplasty patients

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Collection and Reporting of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Arthroplasty Registries: Multinational Survey and Recommendations

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • Chris Halling Dreyer
  • Maria Rasmussen
  • Rasmus Hestehave Pedersen
  • Soren Overgaard
  • Ming Ding
View graph of relations
Introduction. In the field of orthopaedic surgery, the use of osteogenic material in larger defects is essential. Autograft and allograft are both known methods, and autograft is believed to be the best choice. But autograft is associated with additional invasive procedures which can prove difficult in fragile patients and can cause local side effect after bone harvest. For feasible purposes, the use of allograft is hereby rising and comparing efficacies, and the differences between autograft and allograft are essential for the clinical outcome for the patients. Method. 24 female Norwegian brown rats were included, 12 normal rats and 12 induced with osteoporosis (OP). OP inducement was verified in vivo by bone volume fraction (BV/TV) at 90 days after ovariectomy (OVX). The primary surgery in each rat consisted of a 2:5 × 3 mm hole in the proximal tibia, bilaterally. Autograft and allograft were randomly allocated in the right and left tibia. After an observation of 21 days, the rats were sacrificed. Tibia samples were harvested, micro-CT scanned for bone inducement and microarchitectural properties, and then embedded for histology. Results. The OP induction was verified three months after the OVX by a reduction of 68.5% in the trabecular bone BV/TV compared to normal bone. Microarchitectural analysis and histology showed no significant differences in the bone-forming capabilities between autograft and allograft in normal or osteoporotic bone after 3 weeks. Conclusion. This study did not demonstrate any difference between autograft and allograft in a normal or osteoporotic rat tibial defect model after 21 days, suggesting allograft is a good alternative to autograft.
Original languageEnglish
Article number9358989
JournalBioMed Research International
Volume2020
Number of pages9
ISSN2314-6133
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 4 Mar 2020
Externally publishedYes

ID: 66044648