The fate of preserved autogenous bone graft

Certain clinical conditions exist in which a section of cranial bone is removed but not immediately replaced at the initial procedure. Preservation of this bone can provide a valuable autogenous donor source for a future reconstructive procedure. The purpose of our study was to compare the volume re...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963) 1997-04, Vol.99 (5), p.1324-1328
Hauptverfasser: DELUCA, L, RASZEWSKI, R, TRESSER, N, GUYURON, B
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1328
container_issue 5
container_start_page 1324
container_title Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)
container_volume 99
creator DELUCA, L
RASZEWSKI, R
TRESSER, N
GUYURON, B
description Certain clinical conditions exist in which a section of cranial bone is removed but not immediately replaced at the initial procedure. Preservation of this bone can provide a valuable autogenous donor source for a future reconstructive procedure. The purpose of our study was to compare the volume retention of fresh autogenous bone with that of preserved autogenous bone as inlay and onlay cranial grafts. Two bone grafts were harvested from the skull of 15 adult New Zealand White rabbits. The graft volumes were calculated, and the graft were preserved in a normal saline-antibiotic solution at -20 degrees C. Three months later, during the second procedure, a fresh graft was harvested and then placed in the preexisting occipital defect as an inlay graft. Also at this time, the preserved grafts were placed, one as an inlay graft in the fresh occipital defect and the other as an onlay graft in the frontal region. The animals were sacrificed 3 months later, and the percentage of graft volume retention was determined. The fresh inlay grafts had a mean volume retention of 85.1 percent, while the preserved inlay nad onlay grafts had 61.8 and 75.9 percent mean volume retention, respectively. It is concluded that while fresh cranial autograft remains the "gold standard" for craniofacial reconstruction, preserved autogenous cranial bone is a viable alternative for inlay and onlay grafting of the craniofacial region.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/00006534-199704001-00019
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78934048</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>78934048</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c434t-def4f189227f1c6a79bb37c08f9580220119f7fe9f3fbb7b59ae96199b234c4f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kE1LAzEQhoMotVZ_grAH8SKr-dzsHKX4BQUv9RySdFIr292a7Ar-e6NdO5eBed_5eggpGL1lFPQdzVEpIUsGoKmklJW5wuCITJniUEou-TGZUip4yajip-QspY_s0KJSEzKBXBQKpuRm-Y5FsD0WXSh2ERPGL1wVdui7NbbdkArXtVisow39OTkJtkl4MeYZeXt8WM6fy8Xr08v8flF6KWRfrjDIwGrgXAfmK6vBOaE9rQOomnJOGYOgA0IQwTntFFiEKj_iuJBeBjEj1_u5u9h9Dph6s90kj01jW8wXGV2DkFTW2VjvjT52KUUMZhc3Wxu_DaPml5P552QOnMwfp9x6Oe4Y3BZXh8YRTNavRt0mb5sQbes36WDjlaK1luIHzj5uMw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>78934048</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The fate of preserved autogenous bone graft</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>DELUCA, L ; RASZEWSKI, R ; TRESSER, N ; GUYURON, B</creator><creatorcontrib>DELUCA, L ; RASZEWSKI, R ; TRESSER, N ; GUYURON, B</creatorcontrib><description>Certain clinical conditions exist in which a section of cranial bone is removed but not immediately replaced at the initial procedure. Preservation of this bone can provide a valuable autogenous donor source for a future reconstructive procedure. The purpose of our study was to compare the volume retention of fresh autogenous bone with that of preserved autogenous bone as inlay and onlay cranial grafts. Two bone grafts were harvested from the skull of 15 adult New Zealand White rabbits. The graft volumes were calculated, and the graft were preserved in a normal saline-antibiotic solution at -20 degrees C. Three months later, during the second procedure, a fresh graft was harvested and then placed in the preexisting occipital defect as an inlay graft. Also at this time, the preserved grafts were placed, one as an inlay graft in the fresh occipital defect and the other as an onlay graft in the frontal region. The animals were sacrificed 3 months later, and the percentage of graft volume retention was determined. The fresh inlay grafts had a mean volume retention of 85.1 percent, while the preserved inlay nad onlay grafts had 61.8 and 75.9 percent mean volume retention, respectively. It is concluded that while fresh cranial autograft remains the "gold standard" for craniofacial reconstruction, preserved autogenous cranial bone is a viable alternative for inlay and onlay grafting of the craniofacial region.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0032-1052</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1529-4242</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00006534-199704001-00019</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9105359</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hagerstown, MD: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</publisher><subject>Analysis of Variance ; Animals ; Biological and medical sciences ; Bone Transplantation - pathology ; Craniotomy ; Curettage ; Graft Survival ; Head and neck surgery. Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics ; Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics ; Medical sciences ; Occipital Bone - pathology ; Occipital Bone - surgery ; Parietal Bone - pathology ; Parietal Bone - surgery ; Rabbits ; Skull - pathology ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases ; Time Factors ; Tissue Preservation ; Transplantation, Autologous</subject><ispartof>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963), 1997-04, Vol.99 (5), p.1324-1328</ispartof><rights>1997 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c434t-def4f189227f1c6a79bb37c08f9580220119f7fe9f3fbb7b59ae96199b234c4f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c434t-def4f189227f1c6a79bb37c08f9580220119f7fe9f3fbb7b59ae96199b234c4f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,776,780,785,786,23910,23911,25119,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=2650874$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9105359$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>DELUCA, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RASZEWSKI, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TRESSER, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GUYURON, B</creatorcontrib><title>The fate of preserved autogenous bone graft</title><title>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</title><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg</addtitle><description>Certain clinical conditions exist in which a section of cranial bone is removed but not immediately replaced at the initial procedure. Preservation of this bone can provide a valuable autogenous donor source for a future reconstructive procedure. The purpose of our study was to compare the volume retention of fresh autogenous bone with that of preserved autogenous bone as inlay and onlay cranial grafts. Two bone grafts were harvested from the skull of 15 adult New Zealand White rabbits. The graft volumes were calculated, and the graft were preserved in a normal saline-antibiotic solution at -20 degrees C. Three months later, during the second procedure, a fresh graft was harvested and then placed in the preexisting occipital defect as an inlay graft. Also at this time, the preserved grafts were placed, one as an inlay graft in the fresh occipital defect and the other as an onlay graft in the frontal region. The animals were sacrificed 3 months later, and the percentage of graft volume retention was determined. The fresh inlay grafts had a mean volume retention of 85.1 percent, while the preserved inlay nad onlay grafts had 61.8 and 75.9 percent mean volume retention, respectively. It is concluded that while fresh cranial autograft remains the "gold standard" for craniofacial reconstruction, preserved autogenous cranial bone is a viable alternative for inlay and onlay grafting of the craniofacial region.</description><subject>Analysis of Variance</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Bone Transplantation - pathology</subject><subject>Craniotomy</subject><subject>Curettage</subject><subject>Graft Survival</subject><subject>Head and neck surgery. Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics</subject><subject>Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Occipital Bone - pathology</subject><subject>Occipital Bone - surgery</subject><subject>Parietal Bone - pathology</subject><subject>Parietal Bone - surgery</subject><subject>Rabbits</subject><subject>Skull - pathology</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Tissue Preservation</subject><subject>Transplantation, Autologous</subject><issn>0032-1052</issn><issn>1529-4242</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kE1LAzEQhoMotVZ_grAH8SKr-dzsHKX4BQUv9RySdFIr292a7Ar-e6NdO5eBed_5eggpGL1lFPQdzVEpIUsGoKmklJW5wuCITJniUEou-TGZUip4yajip-QspY_s0KJSEzKBXBQKpuRm-Y5FsD0WXSh2ERPGL1wVdui7NbbdkArXtVisow39OTkJtkl4MeYZeXt8WM6fy8Xr08v8flF6KWRfrjDIwGrgXAfmK6vBOaE9rQOomnJOGYOgA0IQwTntFFiEKj_iuJBeBjEj1_u5u9h9Dph6s90kj01jW8wXGV2DkFTW2VjvjT52KUUMZhc3Wxu_DaPml5P552QOnMwfp9x6Oe4Y3BZXh8YRTNavRt0mb5sQbes36WDjlaK1luIHzj5uMw</recordid><startdate>19970401</startdate><enddate>19970401</enddate><creator>DELUCA, L</creator><creator>RASZEWSKI, R</creator><creator>TRESSER, N</creator><creator>GUYURON, B</creator><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19970401</creationdate><title>The fate of preserved autogenous bone graft</title><author>DELUCA, L ; RASZEWSKI, R ; TRESSER, N ; GUYURON, B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c434t-def4f189227f1c6a79bb37c08f9580220119f7fe9f3fbb7b59ae96199b234c4f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Analysis of Variance</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Bone Transplantation - pathology</topic><topic>Craniotomy</topic><topic>Curettage</topic><topic>Graft Survival</topic><topic>Head and neck surgery. Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics</topic><topic>Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Occipital Bone - pathology</topic><topic>Occipital Bone - surgery</topic><topic>Parietal Bone - pathology</topic><topic>Parietal Bone - surgery</topic><topic>Rabbits</topic><topic>Skull - pathology</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Tissue Preservation</topic><topic>Transplantation, Autologous</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>DELUCA, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RASZEWSKI, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>TRESSER, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GUYURON, B</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>DELUCA, L</au><au>RASZEWSKI, R</au><au>TRESSER, N</au><au>GUYURON, B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The fate of preserved autogenous bone graft</atitle><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</jtitle><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg</addtitle><date>1997-04-01</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>99</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1324</spage><epage>1328</epage><pages>1324-1328</pages><issn>0032-1052</issn><eissn>1529-4242</eissn><abstract>Certain clinical conditions exist in which a section of cranial bone is removed but not immediately replaced at the initial procedure. Preservation of this bone can provide a valuable autogenous donor source for a future reconstructive procedure. The purpose of our study was to compare the volume retention of fresh autogenous bone with that of preserved autogenous bone as inlay and onlay cranial grafts. Two bone grafts were harvested from the skull of 15 adult New Zealand White rabbits. The graft volumes were calculated, and the graft were preserved in a normal saline-antibiotic solution at -20 degrees C. Three months later, during the second procedure, a fresh graft was harvested and then placed in the preexisting occipital defect as an inlay graft. Also at this time, the preserved grafts were placed, one as an inlay graft in the fresh occipital defect and the other as an onlay graft in the frontal region. The animals were sacrificed 3 months later, and the percentage of graft volume retention was determined. The fresh inlay grafts had a mean volume retention of 85.1 percent, while the preserved inlay nad onlay grafts had 61.8 and 75.9 percent mean volume retention, respectively. It is concluded that while fresh cranial autograft remains the "gold standard" for craniofacial reconstruction, preserved autogenous cranial bone is a viable alternative for inlay and onlay grafting of the craniofacial region.</abstract><cop>Hagerstown, MD</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</pub><pmid>9105359</pmid><doi>10.1097/00006534-199704001-00019</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0032-1052
ispartof Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963), 1997-04, Vol.99 (5), p.1324-1328
issn 0032-1052
1529-4242
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78934048
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Analysis of Variance
Animals
Biological and medical sciences
Bone Transplantation - pathology
Craniotomy
Curettage
Graft Survival
Head and neck surgery. Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics
Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics
Medical sciences
Occipital Bone - pathology
Occipital Bone - surgery
Parietal Bone - pathology
Parietal Bone - surgery
Rabbits
Skull - pathology
Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases
Time Factors
Tissue Preservation
Transplantation, Autologous
title The fate of preserved autogenous bone graft
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T01%3A18%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20fate%20of%20preserved%20autogenous%20bone%20graft&rft.jtitle=Plastic%20and%20reconstructive%20surgery%20(1963)&rft.au=DELUCA,%20L&rft.date=1997-04-01&rft.volume=99&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1324&rft.epage=1328&rft.pages=1324-1328&rft.issn=0032-1052&rft.eissn=1529-4242&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00006534-199704001-00019&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E78934048%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=78934048&rft_id=info:pmid/9105359&rfr_iscdi=true