Zhonghua wai ke za zhi [Chinese journal of surgery] · 2002
[Cancellous bone allograft in management of bone defect following tumor resection].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hao Lin, Cai Youbo, Niu Xiaohui
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether cancellous bone allograft is the best biological material for filling a cavity bone defect.
METHODS: Between 1992 and 1998, deep frozen cancellous bone allograft was used in the treatment of bone defect in 57 patients following tumor resection. The age of the patients varied from 6 to 56 years (mean 17.4 years).
RESULTS: Bone unions were achieved in 56 patients, and the average time for union was 4.5 months; One patient had the graft removed for infection. The time for union was different according to the volume of graft. The longer time for union was always accompanied with the larger volume of graft. To compare the union time of admixture of cancellous autograft and allograft with that of cancellous allograft alone, the time for union was same in both group. No immune response and infection was observed in this group. And infection happened in 1 of the 57 patients. The local recurrence rate of tumor was 7%.
CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility and security of this packing method are better than other. Compared with cancellous autograft, no significant difference was found in the time for union and complication rate except local tumor recurrence.
METHODS: Between 1992 and 1998, deep frozen cancellous bone allograft was used in the treatment of bone defect in 57 patients following tumor resection. The age of the patients varied from 6 to 56 years (mean 17.4 years).
RESULTS: Bone unions were achieved in 56 patients, and the average time for union was 4.5 months; One patient had the graft removed for infection. The time for union was different according to the volume of graft. The longer time for union was always accompanied with the larger volume of graft. To compare the union time of admixture of cancellous autograft and allograft with that of cancellous allograft alone, the time for union was same in both group. No immune response and infection was observed in this group. And infection happened in 1 of the 57 patients. The local recurrence rate of tumor was 7%.
CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility and security of this packing method are better than other. Compared with cancellous autograft, no significant difference was found in the time for union and complication rate except local tumor recurrence.