Skip to main content

Strategies for large bone defect reconstruction after trauma, infections or tumour excision: a comprehensive review of the literature

Abstract

Large bone defects resulting from musculoskeletal tumours, infections, or trauma are often unable to heal spontaneously. The challenge for surgeons is to avoid amputation, and provide the best functional outcomes. Allograft, vascularized fibular or iliac graft, hybrid graft, extracorporeal devitalized autograft, distraction osteogenesis, induced-membrane technique, and segmental prostheses are the most common surgical strategies to manage large bone defects. Given its optimal osteogenesis, osteoinduction, osteoconduction, and histocompatibility properties, along with the lower the risk of immunological rejection, autologous graft represents the most common used strategy for reconstruction of bone defects. However, the choice of the best surgical technique is still debated, and no consensus has been reached. The present study investigated the current reconstructive strategies for large bone defect after trauma, infections, or tumour excision, discussed advantages and disadvantages of each technique, debated available techniques and materials, and evaluated complications and new perspectives.

Introduction

Large bone defects resulting from musculoskeletal tumours, infections or trauma represent a tissue deficit unable to heal spontaneously even with adequate care and surgical stabilization [1, 2]. Surgical management aims to reconstruct the defect, avoiding amputation and providing acceptable functional outcomes [3]. Reconstruction can involve massive intercalary replacement when the whole diaphysis is replaced [4], or joint components, in association, if necessary, with prosthetic elements [5, 6]. Intercalary reconstructions showed better functional outcomes compared to other limb salvage procedures from lower morbidity of the adjacent joints [7]. Reconstructive management for large bone defects can involve autograft, allograft and non-biological materials [8]. Autografts such as vascularized fibular graft [9] or vascularized iliac bone graft [10, 11] are considered the gold standard for reconstruction of post-traumatic bone defects with non-union or malunion, given their properties of osteogenesis, osteoinduction, osteoconduction, and histocompatibility, leading to a low risk of immunological rejection [12,13,14]. Disadvantages are the limited amount of bone graft available, infection, prolonged wound drainage, and reoperation of the donor site [15, 16]. Another type of autograft, after bone tumour resection, consists in the re-use of the excised bone segment. For this technique, the bone segment should be processed by pasteurization, autoclaving, gamma irradiation or cryotherapy, resulting in reduction of graft osteogenicity and osteoinductivity [17,18,19]. Allografts represent a valid alternative to autografts, and are commonly used after bone tumour resection [20]. The main advantages of these grafts are their relative abundance, which allows reconstruction even after massive bone defect, and the absence of morbidity of the donor site [21]. The disadvantages, on the other hand, are immunological rejection and the risk of transmissive diseases, such as HIV and Hepatitis C [22,23,24]. However, these latter are reduced by modern screening methods [21, 23]. Bone cement spacers and induced-membrane technique is another alternative available for the reconstruction of bone defects [25, 26]. This technique is used to manage infected or uninfected bone defects [27, 28]. However, these techniques exhibit poor bone integration and slow remodelling, which make them more suitable for the reconstruction of upper limb defects, as mechanical failure is a frequent complication in the lower limb [4]. The main non-biological materials are segmental endoprosthesis [4, 21]. Segmental prostheses have several advantages, such as immediate stability, rapid rehabilitation, and early weight bearing [24]. The disadvantages, on the other hand, are infections, mechanical loosening, mechanical wear, and prosthetic and periprosthetic fracture [21, 29]. The choice of the best surgical technique is still debated, and no consensus has been reached. The present study investigated current reconstructive strategies for large bone defect after trauma, infections, or tumour excision, discussed advantages and disadvantages of each technique, debated available techniques and materials, and evaluated complications and new perspectives.

Reconstruction using biological materials

Biological reconstructions can be managed through viable or non-viable bone material [4]. Viable bone material was considered the gold standard for reconstruction of post-traumatic bone defects from non-union or malunion, given its properties of osteogenesis, osteoinduction, osteoconduction, and histocompatibility, given its low risk of immunological rejection and a high rate of neoformation of bone [12, 13, 30]. Vascularized fibular graft, vascularized iliac bone graft, bone lengthening utilizing external fixation, and the induced-membrane technique are all examples of reconstruction techniques using viable bone [9,10,11]. Allograft, a biological reconstruction technique through non-viable bone, is used in reconstruction after resection of a bone tumour [6, 20, 21]. The combined reconstruction with a vascularized fibula and an allograft has the advantages of both previously described techniques [31]. Furthermore, among the reconstruction techniques which use non-viable bone material, the re-use of resected tumour bone can also be included [32]. For this purpose, the bone segment must be processed by pasteurization, gamma irradiation, or cryotherapy [17,18,19].

Vascularized fibular graft

Vascularized fibular grafts are commonly used to reconstruct bone defects larger than 6 cm, after infection, tumour excision, and trauma [33], often in combination with soft tissue defects [34]. Three different options of vascularized fibular graft have been developed: single vascularized fibular graft, double-barrel technique, and combined vascularized fibula and allograft reconstruction [4, 35, 36]. In adult patients, a fibular graft up to 25–26 cm can be harvested [21, 37]. The proximal fibula and the lateral malleolus should be spared to maintain knee and ankle joint stability, protect the common peroneal nerve, and preserve weight-bearing capacity [9, 21, 33, 35, 37]. A classical single vascularized fibular graft (Fig. 1), having a reduced cross section, could be at risk of stress fractures if used in the lower limbs [34, 38, 39]. To prevent them, techniques such as the double-barrel technique and the combined vascularized fibula and allograft reconstruction have been developed [38]. Indications for single vascularized fibular graft are upper extremity reconstruction, tibial defect, bone defect in paediatric patients and in general all areas under lighter stress load [4, 40]. In the double-barrel technique, the fibular graft, thanks to its dual vascularization and adequate blood supply, can be transversely osteotomized to produce two pieces [38, 41]. This procedure, which allows the graft to double its cross section and increase its weight-bearing capacity [38, 41, 42], is particularly suitable for reconstruction of the femur and pelvis [38, 42]. However, the bone defect for which this technique can be used must not exceed 13 cm in length [41]. Complications such as infections, fixation failure and graft fracture have been reported [40, 43,44,45], but the rate of union was 82% at 2 years and 97% at 5 years. Union was achieved without further surgery in 70% of patients at a mean of 10 months post-operatively. Major complications such as deep soft-tissue infection, thrombosis of the pedicle, stress fracture not associated with fixation failure, compartment syndrome, and vascular injury have been reported. Liu et al. [46], in a long-term follow-up of fibular graft, reported union rates of 100% and mean union time of 21.3 weeks.

Fig. 1
figure1

Single vascularized fibular graft with vascular pedicle. A Proximal osteotomy; B fibular graft with peroneal artery, periosteal branches, and vascular pedicle; C distal osteotomy

Combined vascularized fibula and allograft reconstruction or hybrid graft

First described by Capanna et al. in the early 1990s [47], this technique consists of combining the advantages provided by the mechanical strength of allografts and the advantages of the biological properties of the autograft [31, 48]. The allograft mainly provides bone support and early stability, while the vascularized fibula facilitates the integration between host and allograft, and has the ability to rapidly consolidate [31, 49, 50]. This hybrid graft can be assembled by the intramedullary or the onlay technique [50, 51]. The intramedullary technique consists of inserting the vascularized fibula inside the allograft (Fig. 2). For this purpose, the anterolateral cortex of the allograft is opened and the medullary canal reamed for a length suitable to accommodate the fibula [50,51,52]. When the fibula is inserted into the autograft, particular attention should be paid not to damage the vascular pedicle [52]. This technique is indicated in massive intercalary reconstruction of femur and tibia, especially in patients with long life expectancy and high physical demands [33, 50, 52]. A common complication associated with this technique is thrombosis of the anastomosed vessels, which can lead to failure of the graft [48]. Uncontrolled bleeding, stress fractures, delayed or failed bone consolidation, delayed bone growth, persistence of deformity, infections, and compartment syndrome are complications associated with the technique [9, 33, 50, 53, 54]. The overall limb salvage rate was 94%, hybrid graft fractures occurred in 23%, and infection in 6% [54]. The median time to full weight-bearing with a removable orthosis was 3.5 months, consolidation of the proximal anastomosis was achieved over a median of 6 months, four of the seven grafts fractured in the distal anastomosis between 6 and 14 months after surgery. After reoperation, consolidation of the distal anastomosis was observed after 2.8 months [50].

Fig. 2
figure2

Intramedullary hybrid graft: a vascularized fibular autograft inserted into medullary canal of a cadaveric femoral allograft

Iliac crest bone graft

Iliac crest bone grafting is another commonly used strategy to reconstruct bone defects secondary to infection, tumour excision and fractures [55, 56]. Iliac crest bone graft presents all the advantages of autografts: osteogenesis, osteoinduction, osteoconduction, and histocompatibility [57,58,59,60]. The bone graft can be harvested from the anterior or the posterior iliac crest [61]. The anterior iliac crest is harvested about 4–5 cm posterior to the anterior superior iliac spine [62, 63], with a length that does not exceed 30 mm to prevent iliac crest stress fracture [64, 65]. Many techniques to harvest the anterior iliac crest have been developed, such as trapdoor technique, tricortical technique [62, 63], segmental bicortical technique, iliac crest-splitting technique, trephine technique, and acetabular reamer technique [63]. These procedures all access the inner or outer table of the ileum to harvest the cortico-cancellous graft or pure cancellous graft [63]. Accessing the posterior iliac crest allows to harvest a segment up to 30 cm long, and it is therefore indicated when a large graft volume is required. The trapdoor technique is particularly effective to obtain a cancellous graft from the posterior ileum [63]. The traditional harvesting technique to obtain an iliac graft may be associated with several complications. The complications that occur after the harvest of the autogenous iliac crest can be divided into major and minor, which occur, respectively, in 10% and 5.8% of patients [10]. Major complications are vascular injury, nerve injury, donor defect hernias, deep infection, deep hematomas, and iliac wing fractures. Minor complications are superficial infection, minor hematomas, and superficial seromas. Calori et al. [66] compared complications related to the donor site using traditional iliac crest bone graft harvest and the reamer irrigator aspirator (RIA) [60, 67, 68] technique. They noted that 14.28% of patients with iliac harvesting reported pain at the donor site, while no pain was reported by patients who underwent RIA. Infection at the donor site did not occur in any patient undergoing RIA, while 14.28% of patients undergoing iliac harvesting presented an infection. Finally, no patient operated with RIA presented a fracture at the donor site, while 2.8% of the patients who underwent iliac harvesting presented an anterior superior iliac spine fracture.

Reconstruction by distraction osteogenesis

Described by Ilizarov in the 1950s [69], distraction osteogenesis has been applied to correct bone deformities, congenital musculoskeletal pathologies, manage bone defects following trauma, infections, and in cancer surgery [70,71,72]. In the past decades, distraction osteogenesis was seldom performed, as it was believed to cause tumour recurrence [21, 70]. Indeed, distraction osteogenesis can only be performed when full tumour resection is achieved [21, 70, 73]. Three different procedures for bone reconstruction after tumour resection have been described: segmental transport, shortening–distraction with an external fixation (Fig. 3), and shortening–distraction with an intramedullary nail to shorten the time of use of external fixation. Given the long time required for external fixation, this technique is only useful if the defect is between 4 and 6 cm [70]. Distraction begins gradually 7–14 days after surgery, with a maximum amount of 1 mm of bone distraction per day. Each millimetre of bone distraction requires approximately 2 days to consolidate [4, 21, 70]. Long-term external fixation, in addition to being uncomfortable for the patient, increases the risk of superficial and deep infections, loosening of the pins, and rotational and axial deviation [21, 70, 72, 74]. This technique regenerates living viable bone tissue to repair the bone defect [21, 75]. Schep et al. [76] reported a mean of 1.5-month distraction osteogenesis to achieve a growth of 1 cm for post-traumatic lower limb defects, and a rate of pin tract infections of 53%. Demiralp et al. [75] reported a mean time of 28 days per cm for intercalary bone defect reconstruction following bone tumour resection, and a rate of 61.5% of pin tract infections.

Fig. 3
figure3

Shortening–distraction with an external fixation. A Osteofibrous dysplasia; B tumour resection, external fixation application, and osteotomy for bone transport; C bone transport procedure; D docking of bone transport and bone union

Bone cement spacer and induced-membrane technique

The induced-membrane technique or Masquelet technique is used for bone defect reconstruction after infection, tumour excision and fractures [4, 25, 77]. This technique is performed in two steps (Fig. 4). The first phase consists of debridement, followed by the insertion of a polymethylmethacrylate spacer into the bone defect [78,79,80]. Polymethylmethacrylate causes a mild foreign-body inflammatory response which induces the development of a thick pseudo-synovial membrane which acts as a newly performed periosteum [78, 79, 81, 82]. This pseudomembrane is highly vascularized and rich in growth factors [78, 79]. The second phase, which begins after 6–8 weeks, involves opening the membrane and removing the spacer, replacing it with a bone graft [4, 25, 79, 83]. The spacer is a local antibiotic carrier, it reduces dead space, and, for this reason, it is especially indicated in the management of infected bone defects [25, 83]. However, this technique showed slow bone integration and a fair amount of graft remodelling [4, 84]. It is commonly preferred for upper limb defect reconstruction, given its high failure rate in lower limb reconstruction from mechanical failure [4]. Lemos Azi et al. [25] conducted a study on the induced-membrane technique and demonstrated that infection occurred in 68% of patients, and soft tissue reconstruction was required in 32% of patients. Bone union was achieved in 91% of patients within a mean time of 8.5 months.

Fig. 4
figure4

Bone cement spacer and induced-membrane technique steps. Step 1 includes debridement, fixation, cement spacer implantation and membrane formations (A traumatized, infected or cancerous tissues; B debridement; C spacer implantation and membrane formation); Step 2 involves in space removal preserving the membrane and the implantation of bone graft material (D spacer removal with membrane preservation; E implantation of bone graft material; F graft remodelling and bone regeneration)

Extracorporeal devitalized autograft reconstructions

Recycling of the tumour-bearing bone segment is an alternative to allograft to repair bone defects following cancer surgery [85]. Several techniques have been developed to remove tumour cells from the resected bone fragment and make it reimplantable, including irradiation, pasteurization, and cryotherapy [18]. A most important advantage is that the processed autograft has the exact shape of the bone defect. This is particularly suitable for reconstructions in anatomically difficult tumour sites [86]. Other advantages are a low immunogenic response, absence of disease transmission, anallergicity, the no need for a bone bank, and the possibility of overcoming cultural objections to allograft found in some countries and cultures. Disadvantages include the risk of infection, fracture, bone resorption, graft necrosis, and delayed union or non-union [4, 21, 86].

Extracorporeal irradiated autograft

Described by Spira and Lubin in 1968 [87], this technique consists of extracorporeal irradiation with reimplantation of a tumour-bearing bone [88, 89]. The first step is to remove the tumour mass with an appropriate margin, along with its surrounding soft tissues [4, 90]. Tendons and ligaments are preserved to be reused after irradiation [8, 89]. Irradiation consists of 60–70 Gy in a single dose [88, 90]. A limitation of this procedure is that the irradiated bone fragments have no blood supply and this can lead to infections, fractures, non-union, and bone re-absorption [90, 91]. To avoid this problem, a vascularized bone graft can be associated with the irradiated bone fragment, improving reconstruction and increasing vascularization [4, 89, 90]. Oike et al. [89] reported that there were no recurrences in the irradiated autograft, and 88.9% survived. Non-union occurred in 33.3%, deep infections in 14.8%, and subchondral bone collapse was observed in 14.8%. Mihara et al. [90] reported that vascularized bone grafting was successful and survived in 93.3% of patients, with 85.7% of these patients achieving complete bone union at an average of 10.8 months (range 5–24 months).

Extracorporeal pasteurized autograft

Pasteurization consists in subjecting the tumour-bearing bone to a temperature of about 65 °C for 30–60 min, thus killing the tumour cells, without altering the osteoinductivity and mechanical resistance of the graft [92,93,94]. After extracorporeal pasteurization, the treated bone is relocated to its native site and fixed with plates and screws [95]. In a comparative study, among the different methods of extracorporeal devitalization of the autograft, pasteurization produced better formation of callus and better preservation of osteocytes and bone marrow cellularity [17]. The 5, 10, and 20-year survival rates of pasteurized bones, calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method, were 73%, 59%, and 40%, respectively [93]. Unfortunately, 38% of the extracorporeal pasteurized autografts were removed because of serious complications. The major complications are infection in 13% of patients, non-union in 7%, fracture of the graft in 6%, failure of fixation in 5%, resorption of the graft in 5%, and local recurrence in 4% [93].

Extracorporeal frozen autograft

The freezing technique uses liquid nitrogen with temperatures to –166 °C to destroy cancer cells [96]. The freezing technique induces ice crystal formation and cell dehydration [97]. Furthermore, freezing can also cause thrombosis of the microcirculation, inducing ischaemic necrosis of the tumour [4, 96, 98]. The technique involves three steps: the bone fragment is immersed for 20 min, thawed for 15 min at room temperature, and rinsed with distilled water for 10–15 min [4, 9, 99, 100]. There are two different procedures to manage the affected bone segment: free freezing and pedicle freezing technique [99] (Fig. 5). The free freezing technique involves two osteotomies [101] and soft tissue removal by immersion of neoplastic bone in liquid nitrogen [99, 100]. The pedicle freezing technique requires a single osteotomy or joint dislocation on the proximal side of the tumour-bearing bone [102]. After the osteotomy or joint dislocation, the bone is rotated and placed in a container filled with liquid nitrogen [99, 102]. Cryotherapy procedures have a number of advantages for the bone, as it retains good osteoinduction and osteoconduction properties, biomechanical strength, with no risk of disease transmission and less immunological reaction. Moreover, freezing requires less equipment than other recycling techniques [4, 96, 100]. Zekry et al. [99] reported that 5- and 10-year survival rates of frozen autografts were 91.2%, and bone union rate was 97%, but fractures occurred in 17.6% of patients, with local recurrence of disease from surrounding soft tissue in 11.8% of patients. Lu et al. [103] compared the frozen autograft with the Capanna’s technique, with no differences in the two operative procedures in terms of resection length, surgery duration, and blood loss. The mean union time for the frozen autograft was 8.4 months, significantly shorter than the Capanna’s method, which had a mean union time of 14.1 months. There are also differences between the two groups in terms of complications: infection and delayed union were observed in 6.7% and 13.3%, respectively, in the Capanna’s group, while no such complications were observed in the patients treated with frozen autograft.

Fig. 5
figure5

Pedicle freezing method and the free freezing method

Reconstruction using non-biological materials

Segmental prosthesis

Segmental prostheses (Fig. 6) are an alternative for intercalary reconstructions [4]. They allow immediate stability, rapid rehabilitation, and early weight bearing [24, 104]. Common complications are infections, mechanical loosening, and mechanical wear [24].

Fig. 6
figure6

Illustration showing a large bone defect after bone tumour resection and reconstruction with a segmental prosthesis

The high risk of prosthetic and periprosthetic fracture has made this technique preferred in patients with limited life expectancy from myeloma, lymphoma, or metastatic bone cancer [21, 24, 104]. Therefore, elderly patients or patients with a limited life expectancy, in whom immediate restoration of function and stability is more important than durability, are the best candidates for this technique [4, 24]. Henderson et al. [105] reported a segmental prosthesis failure rate of 24.5%, of which 49% were mechanical and 51% non-mechanical. Five failure modes were identified: the most common was infection, which occurred in 34% of patients, then failures from soft tissue problems around the implant, which were observed in 12% of patients, aseptic loosening in 19%, structural failures in 17%, and failure from tumour progression in 17%.

Conclusions

The management of large bone defects remains a challenge. The choice of technique is still debated, and consensus is lacking. Several techniques are available to manage bone defects; however, the lack of quantitative data, along with the limited quality evidence, does not allow to infer solid conclusions. Further investigations are necessary to provide quantitative data on the rates of complication and reoperation.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

RIA:

Reamer irrigator aspirator

References

  1. 1.

    El-Rashidy AA, Roether JA, Harhaus L, Kneser U, Boccaccini AR. Regenerating bone with bioactive glass scaffolds: a review of in vivo studies in bone defect models. Acta Biomater. 2017;62:1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2017.08.030.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Nauth A, Schemitsch E, Norris B, Nollin Z, Watson JT. Critical-size bone defects: is there a consensus for diagnosis and treatment? J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32(Suppl 1):S7–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Renard AJ, Veth RP, Schreuder HW, van Loon CJ, Koops HS, van Horn JR. Function and complications after ablative and limb-salvage therapy in lower extremity sarcoma of bone. J Surg Oncol. 2000;73(4):198–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-9098(200004)73:4%3c198::aid-jso3%3e3.0.co;2-x.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Zekry KM, Yamamoto N, Hayashi K, Takeuchi A, Alkhooly AZA, Abd-Elfattah AS, Elsaid ANS, Ahmed AR, Tsuchiya H. Reconstruction of intercalary bone defect after resection of malignant bone tumor. J Orthop Surg. 2019;27(1):2309499019832970. https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499019832970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bai XS, Thomas JM, Ha AS. Surgical correction of articular damage in the knee: osteoarticular transplantation to joint reconstruction. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2017;21(2):147–64. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1599211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Raskin KA, Hornicek F. Allograft reconstruction in malignant bone tumors: indications and limits. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2009;179:51–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77960-5_5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Bus MP, van de Sande MA, Taminiau AH, Dijkstra PD. Is there still a role for osteoarticular allograft reconstruction in musculoskeletal tumour surgery? A long-term follow-up study of 38 patients and systematic review of the literature. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(4):522–30. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B4.BJJ-2016-0443.R2.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Nishida J, Shimamura T. Methods of reconstruction for bone defect after tumor excision: a review of alternatives. Med Sci Monit. 2008;14(8):RA107-113.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ou Q, Wu P, Zhou Z, Pan D, Tang JY. Complication of osteo reconstruction by utilizing free vascularized fibular bone graft. BMC Surg. 2020;20(1):216. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00875-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Arrington ED, Smith WJ, Chambers HG, Bucknell AL, Davino NA. Complications of iliac crest bone graft harvesting. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329:300–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199608000-00037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Zhao Z, Yan T, Guo W, Yang R, Tang X, Wang W. Surgical options and reconstruction strategies for primary bone tumors of distal tibia: a systematic review of complications and functional outcome. J Bone Oncol. 2019;14: 100209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbo.2018.100209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Baldwin P, Li DJ, Auston DA, Mir HS, Yoon RS, Koval KJ. Autograft, allograft, and bone graft substitutes: clinical evidence and indications for use in the setting of orthopaedic trauma surgery. J Orthop Trauma. 2019;33(4):203–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001420.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Beaman FD, Bancroft LW, Peterson JJ, Kransdorf MJ. Bone graft materials and synthetic substitutes. Radiol Clin North Am. 2006;44(3):451–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2006.01.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Yamamoto N, Hayashi K, Tsuchiya H. Progress in biological reconstruction and enhanced bone revitalization for bone defects. J Orthop Sci. 2019;24(3):387–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2019.01.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ghoneimy AME, Sherbiny ME, Kamal N. Use of vascularized fibular free flap in the reconstruction of the femur in pediatric and adolescent bone sarcomas: complications and functional outcome. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2019;35(2):156–62. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1668142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Emori M, Kaya M, Irifune H, Takahashi N, Shimizu J, Mizushima E, Murahashi Y, Yamashita T. Vascularised fibular grafts for reconstruction of extremity bone defects after resection of bone and soft-tissue tumours: a single institutional study of 49 patients. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(9):1237–43. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B9.BJJ-2017-0219.R1.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Yasin NF, Ajit Singh V, Saad M, Omar E. Which is the best method of sterilization for recycled bone autograft in limb salvage surgery: a radiological, biomechanical and histopathological study in rabbit. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:289. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1234-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Klifto CS, Gandi SD, Sapienza A. Bone graft options in upper-extremity surgery. J Hand Surg Am. 2018;43(8):755-761.e752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.03.055.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Qu H, Guo W, Yang R, Li D, Tang S, Yang Y, Dong S, Zang J. Reconstruction of segmental bone defect of long bones after tumor resection by devitalized tumor-bearing bone. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;13:282. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-015-0694-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Delloye C, Banse X, Brichard B, Docquier PL, Cornu O. Pelvic reconstruction with a structural pelvic allograft after resection of a malignant bone tumor. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(3):579–87. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.E.00943.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Panagopoulos GN, Mavrogenis AF, Mauffrey C, Lesensky J, Angelini A, Megaloikonomos PD, Igoumenou VG, Papanastassiou J, Savvidou O, Ruggieri P, Papagelopoulos PJ. Intercalary reconstructions after bone tumor resections: a review of treatments. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017;27(6):737–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-1985-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Mankin HJ, Hornicek FJ, Raskin KA. Infection in massive bone allografts. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;432:210–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000150371.77314.52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Hinsenkamp M, Muylle L, Eastlund T, Fehily D, Noel L, Strong DM. Adverse reactions and events related to musculoskeletal allografts: reviewed by the World Health Organisation Project NOTIFY. Int Orthop. 2012;36(3):633–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1391-7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Zheng K, Yu XC, Hu YC, Shao ZW, Xu M, Wang BC, Wang F. Outcome of segmental prosthesis reconstruction for diaphyseal bone tumors: a multi-center retrospective study. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):638. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5865-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Azi ML, Teixeira AAA, Cotias RB, Joeris A, Kfuri M. Induced-membrane technique in the management of posttraumatic bone defects. JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2019;9(2):e22. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.ST.18.00099.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Villemagne T, Bonnard C, Accadbled F, L’Kaissi M, de Billy B, Sales de Gauzy J. Intercalary segmental reconstruction of long bones after malignant bone tumor resection using primary methyl methacrylate cement spacer interposition and secondary bone grafting: the induced membrane technique. J Pediatr Orthop. 2011;31(5):570–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e31821ffa82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Masquelet AC. Induced membrane technique: pearls and pitfalls. J Orthop Trauma. 2017;31(Suppl 5):S36-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000979.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Fung B, Hoit G, Schemitsch E, Godbout C, Nauth A. The induced membrane technique for the management of long bone defects. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(12):1723–34. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B12.BJJ-2020-1125.R1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Graci C, Maccauro G, Muratori F, Spinelli MS, Rosa MA, Fabbriciani C. Infection following bone tumor resection and reconstruction with tumoral prostheses: a literature review. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2010;23(4):1005–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/039463201002300405.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Vidal L, Kampleitner C, Brennan MA, Hoornaert A, Layrolle P. Reconstruction of large skeletal defects: current clinical therapeutic strategies and future directions using 3D printing. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020;8:61. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00061.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Bakri K, Stans AA, Mardini S, Moran SL. Combined massive allograft and intramedullary vascularized fibula transfer: the Capanna technique for lower-limb reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg. 2008;22(3):234–41. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1081406.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Krieg AH, Lenze U, Schultze L, Gross MW, Haug M. Extracorporeal irradiation and reimplantation of tumor-bearing bone segments following diaphyseal sarcoma resection at the tibia. Anticancer Res. 2019;39(4):2015–23. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.13312.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Beris AE, Lykissas MG, Korompilias AV, Vekris MD, Mitsionis GI, Malizos KN, Soucacos PN. Vascularized fibula transfer for lower limb reconstruction. Microsurgery. 2011;31(3):205–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/micr.20841.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Kalra GS, Goel P, Singh PK. Reconstruction of post-traumatic long bone defect with vascularised free fibula: a series of 28 cases. Indian J Plast Surg. 2013;46(3):543–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-0358.122013.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Bumbasirevic M, Stevanovic M, Bumbasirevic V, Lesic A, Atkinson HD. Free vascularised fibular grafts in orthopaedics. Int Orthop. 2014;38(6):1277–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2281-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Muramatsu K, Ihara K, Shigetomi M, Kawai S. Femoral reconstruction by single, folded or double free vascularised fibular grafts. Br J Plast Surg. 2004;57(6):550–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2003.08.021.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Mukherjee AN, Pal AK, Singharoy D, Baksi D, Nath C. Harvesting the free fibular graft: a modified approach. Indian J Orthop. 2011;45(1):53–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.73657.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Bi ZG, Han XG, Fu CJ, Cao Y, Yang CL. Reconstruction of large limb bone defects with a double-barrel free vascularized fibular graft. Chin Med J. 2008;121(23):2424–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Kovoor CC, Jayakumar R, George V, Padmanabhan V, Guild A, Viswanath S. Vascularized fibular graft in infected tibial bone loss. Indian J Orthop. 2011;45(4):330–5. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.82337.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Roddy E, DeBaun MR, Daoud-Gray A, Yang YP, Gardner MJ. Treatment of critical-sized bone defects: clinical and tissue engineering perspectives. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2018;28(3):351–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-2063-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Wieser K, Modaressi K, Seeli F, Fuchs B. Autologous double-barrel vascularized fibula bone graft for arthrodesis of the shoulder after tumor resection. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(9):1219–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1795-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Chu CH, Jou IM, Shieh SJ. Reconstruction of a massive femoral bone defect using a double-barreled free vascularized fibular bone graft after wide resection of femoral chondrosarcoma. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2009;25(10):552–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70548-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Estrella EP, Wang EH. A comparison of vascularized free fibular flaps and nonvascularized fibular grafts for reconstruction of long bone defects after tumor resection. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2017;33(3):194–205. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1594299.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    McCullough MC, Arkader A, Ariani R, Lightdale-Miric N, Tolo V, Stevanovic M. Surgical outcomes, complications, and long-term functionality for free vascularized fibula grafts in the pediatric population: a 17-year experience and systematic review of the literature. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2020;36(5):386–96. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1702147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Houdek MT, Bayne CO, Bishop AT, Shin AY. The outcome and complications of vascularised fibular grafts. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(1):134–8. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B1.BJJ-2016-0160.R1.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Liu S, Tao S, Tan J, Hu X, Liu H, Li Z. Long-term follow-up of fibular graft for the reconstruction of bone defects. Medicine. 2018;97(40): e12605. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000012605.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Capanna R, Bufalini C, Campanacci M. A new technique for reconstructions of large metadiaphyseal bone defects. Orthop Traumatol. 1993;2(3):159–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02620523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Rabitsch K, Maurer-Ertl W, Pirker-Fruhauf U, Wibmer C, Leithner A. Intercalary reconstructions with vascularised fibula and allograft after tumour resection in the lower limb. Sarcoma. 2013;2013: 160295. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/160295.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Pederson WC, Person DW. Long bone reconstruction with vascularized bone grafts. Orthop Clin North Am. 2007;38(1):23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2006.10.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Van Den Heuvel SCM, Winters HAH, Ultee KH, Zijlstra-Koenrades N, Sakkers RJB. Combined massive allograft and intramedullary vascularized fibula transfer: the Capanna technique for treatment of congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia. Acta Orthop. 2020;91(5):605–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1773670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Lee JH, Han CS, Baek JH. Onlay vascularized fibular grafting as a salvage procedure for the management of nonunion after reconstruction of the femur following tumor resection. J Orthop Surg. 2018;26(3):2309499018802490. https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499018802490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Ceruso M, Falcone C, Innocenti M, Delcroix L, Capanna R, Manfrini M. Skeletal reconstruction with a free vascularized fibula graft associated to bone allograft after resection of malignant bone tumor of limbs. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2001;33(4):277–82. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2001-16597.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Campanacci DA, Totti F, Puccini S, Beltrami G, Scoccianti G, Delcroix L, Innocenti M, Capanna R. Intercalary reconstruction of femur after tumour resection: is a vascularized fibular autograft plus allograft a long-lasting solution? Bone Joint J. 2018;100-B(3):378–86. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.100B3.BJJ-2017-0283.R2.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Errani C, Ceruso M, Donati DM, Manfrini M. Microsurgical reconstruction with vascularized fibula and massive bone allograft for bone tumors. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019;29(2):307–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-018-2360-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Ebraheim NA, Elgafy H, Xu R. Bone-graft harvesting from iliac and fibular donor sites: techniques and complications. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2001;9(3):210–8. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200105000-00007.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Tonoli C, Bechara AH, Rossanez R, Belangero WD, Livani B. Use of the vascularized iliac-crest flap in musculoskeletal lesions. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013: 237146. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/237146.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Roberts TT, Rosenbaum AJ. Bone grafts, bone substitutes and orthobiologics: the bridge between basic science and clinical advancements in fracture healing. Organogenesis. 2012;8(4):114–24. https://doi.org/10.4161/org.23306.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Lei P, Du W, Liu H, Wu P, Zhou Z, Yu F, Qing L, Pan D, Liu R, Zeng L, Cao Z, Ou Q, Tang J. Free vascularized iliac bone flap based on deep circumflex iliac vessels graft for the treatment of osteonecrosis of femoral head. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):397. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1440-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Takemoto RC, Fajardo M, Kirsch T, Egol KA. Quantitative assessment of the bone morphogenetic protein expression from alternate bone graft harvesting sites. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24(9):564–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181ed29a6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Dawson J, Kiner D, Gardner W 2nd, Swafford R, Nowotarski PJ. The reamer-irrigator-aspirator as a device for harvesting bone graft compared with iliac crest bone graft: union rates and complications. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(10):584–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000086.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Kessler P, Thorwarth M, Bloch-Birkholz A, Nkenke E, Neukam FW. Harvesting of bone from the iliac crest—comparison of the anterior and posterior sites. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;43(1):51–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2004.08.026.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Zhu JF, Xu WX, Hu Q, Wu TQ, Liu H. Iliac bone harvesting techniques for bone reconstruction. Comparative study between tricortical bone harvesting vs trapdoor technique. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2020;16:559–65. https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S257336.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Myeroff C, Archdeacon M. Autogenous bone graft: donor sites and techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(23):2227–36. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Hu R, Hearn T, Yang J. Bone graft harvest site as a determinant of iliac crest strength. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;310:252–6.

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Varga E, Hu R, Hearn TC, Woodside T, Yang JP. Biomechanical analysis of hemipelvic deformation after corticospongious bone graft harvest from the posterior iliac crest. Spine. 1996;21(13):1494–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199607010-00002.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Calori GM, Colombo M, Mazza EL, Mazzola S, Malagoli E, Mineo GV. Incidence of donor site morbidity following harvesting from iliac crest or RIA graft. Injury. 2014;45(Suppl 6):S116-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.10.034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Dehghan N, Schemitsch EH. Extended applications of the reamer-irrigator-aspirator (RIA) system. Injury. 2017;48(Suppl 1):S47–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2017.04.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Madison RD, Nowotarski PJ. The reamer-irrigator-aspirator in nonunion surgery. Orthop Clin North Am. 2019;50(3):297–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2019.03.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Spiegelberg B, Parratt T, Dheerendra SK, Khan WS, Jennings R, Marsh DR. Ilizarov principles of deformity correction. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2010;92(2):101–5. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588410X12518836439326.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Lesensky J, Prince DE. Distraction osteogenesis reconstruction of large segmental bone defects after primary tumor resection: pitfalls and benefits. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017;27(6):715–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-1998-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Alzahrani MM, Anam E, AlQahtani SM, Makhdom AM, Hamdy RC. Strategies of enhancing bone regenerate formation in distraction osteogenesis. Connect Tissue Res. 2018;59(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/03008207.2017.1288725.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Matsubara H, Tsuchiya H. Treatment of bone tumor using external fixator. J Orthop Sci. 2019;24(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2018.06.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Rath B, Hardes J, Tingart M, Braunschweig T, Eschweiler J, Migliorini F. Resection margins in soft tissue sarcomas. Orthopade. 2019;48(9):768–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-019-03795-6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Tsuchiya H, Abdel-Wanis ME, Sakurakichi K, Yamashiro T, Tomita K. Osteosarcoma around the knee. Intraepiphyseal excision and biological reconstruction with distraction osteogenesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84(8):1162–6. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.84b8.13330.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Demiralp B, Ege T, Kose O, Yurttas Y, Basbozkurt M. Reconstruction of intercalary bone defects following bone tumor resection with segmental bone transport using an Ilizarov circular external fixator. J Orthop Sci. 2014;19(6):1004–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-014-0632-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Schep NW, van Lieshout EM, Patka P, Vogels LM. Long-term functional and quality of live assessment following post-traumatic distraction osteogenesis of the lower limb. Strateg Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2009;4(3):107–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11751-009-0070-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Karger C, Kishi T, Schneider L, Fitoussi F, Masquelet AC, French Society of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology. Treatment of posttraumatic bone defects by the induced membrane technique. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98(1):97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2011.11.001.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Gouron R. Surgical technique and indications of the induced membrane procedure in children. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016;102(1 Suppl):S133-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2015.06.027.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Mathieu L, Tossou-Odjo L, de l’Escalopier N, Demoures T, Baus A, Brachet M, Masquelet AC. Induced membrane technique with sequential internal fixation: use of a reinforced spacer for reconstruction of infected bone defects. Int Orthop. 2020;44(9):1647–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04735-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Pereira R, Perry WC, Crisologo PA, Liette MD, Hall B, Hafez Hassn SG, Masadeh S. Membrane-induced technique for the management of combined soft tissue and osseous defects. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2021;38(1):99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpm.2020.09.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Taylor BC, French BG, Fowler TT, Russell J, Poka A. Induced membrane technique for reconstruction to manage bone loss. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012;20(3):142–50. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-20-03-142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Lu Y, Wang J, Yang Y, Yin Q. Bone defects are repaired by enhanced osteogenic activity of the induced membrane: a case report and literature review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):447. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04317-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Mauffrey C, Hake ME, Chadayammuri V, Masquelet AC. Reconstruction of long bone infections using the induced membrane technique: tips and tricks. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(6):e188-193. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000000500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Gouron R, Petit L, Boudot C, Six I, Brazier M, Kamel S, Mentaverri R. Osteoclasts and their precursors are present in the induced-membrane during bone reconstruction using the Masquelet technique. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2017;11(2):382–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/term.1921.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Wu PK, Chen CF, Chen CM, Cheng YC, Tsai SW, Chen TH, Chen WM. Intraoperative extracorporeal irradiation and frozen treatment on tumor-bearing autografts show equivalent outcomes for biologic reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476(4):877–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999.0000000000000022.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Ogura K, Miyamoto S, Sakuraba M, Fujiwara T, Chuman H, Kawai A. Intercalary reconstruction after wide resection of malignant bone tumors of the lower extremity using a composite graft with a devitalized autograft and a vascularized fibula. Sarcoma. 2015;2015: 861575. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/861575.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Spira E, Lubin E. Extracorporeal irradiation of bone tumors. A preliminary report. Isr J Med Sci. 1968;4(5):1015–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Pruksakorn D, Kongthavonskul J, Teeyakasem P, Phanphaisarn A, Chaiyawat P, Klangjorhor J, Arpornchayanon O. Surgical outcomes of extracorporeal irradiation and re-implantation in extremities for high grade osteosarcoma: a retrospective cohort study and a systematic review of the literature. J Bone Oncol. 2019;14: 100210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbo.2018.100210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Oike N, Kawashima H, Ogose A, Hatano H, Ariizumi T, Kaidu M, Aoyama H, Endo N. Long-term outcomes of an extracorporeal irradiated autograft for limb salvage operations in musculoskeletal tumours: over ten years’ observation. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-B(9):1151–9. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B9.BJJ-2019-0090.R1.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Mihara A, Muramatsu K, Hashimoto T, Iwanaga R, Ihara K, Sakai T. Combination of extracorporeally-irradiated autograft and vascularized bone graft for reconstruction of malignant musculoskeletal tumor. Anticancer Res. 2020;40(3):1637–43. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.14113.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Takenaka S, Araki N, Ueda T, Kakunaga S, Imura Y, Hamada KI, Outani H, Naka N, Myoui A, Yoshikawa H. Clinical outcomes of osteoarticular extracorporeal irradiated autograft for malignant bone tumor. Sarcoma. 2020;2020:9672093. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9672093.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Liu T, Guo X, Zhang X, Li Z, Zhang Q. Reconstruction with pasteurized autograft for primary malignant bone tumor of distal tibia. Bull Cancer. 2012;99(9):87–91. https://doi.org/10.1684/bdc.2012.1626.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Lee SY, Jeon DG, Cho WH, Song WS, Kim BS. Are pasteurized autografts durable for reconstructions after bone tumor resections? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476(9):1728–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999.0000000000000100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Takata M, Sugimoto N, Yamamoto N, Shirai T, Hayashi K, Nishida H, Tanzawa Y, Kimura H, Miwa S, Takeuchi A, Tsuchiya H. Activity of bone morphogenetic protein-7 after treatment at various temperatures: freezing vs. pasteurization vs. allograft. Cryobiology. 2011;63(3):235–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryobiol.2011.09.001.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Guo X, Li X, Liu T, Shuai C, Zhang Q. Pasteurized autograft reconstruction after resection of periacetabular malignant bone tumours. World J Surg Oncol. 2017;15(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-016-1065-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Igarashi K, Yamamoto N, Shirai T, Hayashi K, Nishida H, Kimura H, Takeuchi A, Tsuchiya H. The long-term outcome following the use of frozen autograft treated with liquid nitrogen in the management of bone and soft-tissue sarcomas. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(4):555–61. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B4.32629.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Kimura H, Yamamoto N, Shirai T, Nishida H, Hayashi K, Tanzawa Y, Takeuchi A, Miwa S, Tsuchiya H. Clinical outcome of reconstruction using frozen autograft for a humeral bone tumor. Anticancer Res. 2016;36(12):6631–5. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.11270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Garg SK, Aggarwal P, Virk J, Punia RPS, Dimri K, Jindal R. Limb salvage using liquid nitrogen-treated tumour-bearing autograft: a single institutional experience of 10 patients. Indian J Orthop. 2020;54(2):200–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-019-00001-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Zekry KM, Yamamoto N, Hayashi K, Takeuchi A, Higuchi T, Abe K, Taniguchi Y, Alkhooly A, Abd-Elfattah AS, Fouly EH, Ahmed AR, Tsuchiya H. Intercalary frozen autograft for reconstruction of malignant bone and soft tissue tumours. Int Orthop. 2017;41(7):1481–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3446-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Tsuchiya H, Wan SL, Sakayama K, Yamamoto N, Nishida H, Tomita K. Reconstruction using an autograft containing tumour treated by liquid nitrogen. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(2):218–25. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.87b2.15325.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Hamed Kassem Abdelaal A, Yamamoto N, Hayashi K, Takeuchi A, Miwa S, Tsuchiya H. Epiphyseal sparing and reconstruction by frozen bone autograft after malignant bone tumor resection in children. Sarcoma. 2015;2015: 892141. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/892141.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Shimozaki S, Yamamoto N, Shirai T, Nishida H, Hayashi K, Tanzawa Y, Kimura H, Takeuchi A, Igarashi K, Inatani H, Kato T, Tsuchiya H. Pedicle versus free frozen autograft for reconstruction in malignant bone and soft tissue tumors of the lower extremities. J Orthop Sci. 2014;19(1):156–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-013-0487-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Lu Y, Zhu H, Huang M, Zhang C, Chen G, Ji C, Wang Z, Li J. Is frozen tumour-bearing autograft with concurrent vascularized fibula an alternative to the Capanna technique for the intercalary reconstruction after resection of osteosarcoma in the lower limb? Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(5):646–52. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B5.BJJ-2019-1380.R1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Palumbo BT, Henderson ER, Groundland JS, Cheong D, Pala E, Letson GD, Ruggieri P. Advances in segmental endoprosthetic reconstruction for extremity tumors: a review of contemporary designs and techniques. Cancer Control. 2011;18(3):160–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/107327481101800303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Henderson ER, Groundland JS, Pala E, Dennis JA, Wooten R, Cheong D, Windhager R, Kotz RI, Mercuri M, Funovics PT, Hornicek FJ, Temple HT, Ruggieri P, Letson GD. Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses: retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(5):418–29. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00834.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

FM: conceptualization, writing, revision, and final approval; GLP: writing, revision, and final approval; ET: revision and final approval; FS: revision and final approval; FO: supervision and final approval; NM: supervision, revision, and final approval. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filippo Migliorini.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Migliorini, F., La Padula, G., Torsiello, E. et al. Strategies for large bone defect reconstruction after trauma, infections or tumour excision: a comprehensive review of the literature. Eur J Med Res 26, 118 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-021-00593-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bone defect
  • Biological
  • Autologous
  • Graft