Vascularized versus non-vascularized bone grafts in the treatment of scaphoid non-union.

INTRODUCTION

Conventional non-vascularized bone grafts as well as vascularized bone grafts are used to treat scaphoid non-union (SN). Due to limited available studies, the field of application using both grafts for SN still remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate a treatment algorithm for the use of both vascularized versus non-vascularized bone grafts based on clinical outcomes and quality of life (QoL) to improve the level of evidence.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

Based on a retrospective cohort study, including 28 patients with vascularized and 45 patients with conventional bone grafts, functional parameters, radiological outcome, Mayo-wrist-score, and QoL by SF-36 were applied to statistically compare the outcome of these two techniques.

RESULTS

Time between last procedure or trauma and study group scaphoid reconstruction was almost double in the vascularized bone grafting group. Comparable union rates were achieved with vascularized as well as non-vascularized bone grafts. Significant differences were observed between both groups for grip strength and radial-ulnar active range of motion. Further functional outcomes, radiological outcomes as well as QoL were found similar for both techniques in patients with surgical union.

DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSIONS

In order to achieve comparable and appropriate treatment results, vascularized bone grafts are recommended for patients with delayed treatment, impaired scaphoid vascularity, and revision surgery. Even in preselected, complex cases, the results are comparable to conventional grafts, which are the basis for further patient education and approve the powerful role of surgical angiogenesis of vascularized bone grafts.