Gluteal Muscle Attachment During Proximal Femoral Reconstruction in a Canine Model.
From: Comparative Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. pluha006@umn.edu
Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society
- Publish Date: Feb 2007
- ISSN: 0736-0266
- Volume: 25
- Issue: 2
- Pages: 208-20
- Medium: Print
- Language: English
- Citation (JAMA): Pluhar G Elizabeth, Manley Paul A, Heiner John P, et al. Gluteal Muscle Attachment During Proximal Femoral Reconstruction in a Canine Model.. J. Orthop. Res. Feb 2007;25:208-20
Abstract
In this 18 month in vivo canine study we compared three methods of attaching the gluteal muscles to the proximal femur during hip reconstruction with an allograft-prosthesis composite (APC). All three methods are commonly practiced in human hip revision surgery and data on their effectiveness in dogs is directly relevant to human treatment. The methods compared were host gluteal tendon sutured to allograft tendon, host greater trochanter apposed to allograft using a cable grip system, and host cortical bone shells around the allograft secured with cerclage wires. For each method, we assessed changes in allograft-host bone fusion, weight bearing, gluteal muscle mass, and structural properties through qualitative radiography, gait analysis, histology, and biomechanical testing. Hip reconstruction using the WRAP method resulted in the greatest limb use with complete resolution of gluteal muscle atrophy 18 months after surgery. This method yielded a stronger, more stable hip joint that allowed for more normal limb function. These hips had the more rapid rate of bony union at the host bone-allograft junction and little resorption of the graft. The increased limb use and resultant larger gluteal muscle mass conferred to the WRAP hip composites the greatest tensile strength and stiffness when tested 18 months after reconstruction. There was a large amount of new bone formation on the periosteal surface where the WRAP reconstructions had an overlay of live bone that resulted in a more rapid union and increased cortical width at the level of the osteotomy. New bone also penetrated into the allograft a greater distance from the osteotomy in the WRAP group.
Mesh Headings (Keywords): Animals, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip, Biomechanics, Buttocks, Disease Models, Animal, Dogs, Femoral Fractures, Femur, Gait, Hip Joint, Hip Prosthesis, Muscle, Skeletal, Orthopedic Procedures, Tendons, Tensile Strength, Transplantation, Homologous, Weight-Bearing
Check for Full Text / PubMed Unique Identifier (PMID): 17068814
This abstract is part of PubMed, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. PubMed includes more than 17 million citations from MEDLINE and other life science journals for biomedical articles. See Copyright and Disclaimers.
Linked medical terms appearing on this page are added by Healia to help readers find more information and are not part of the original PubMed document.
The data herein was last updated on July 8th, 2008 and may not reflect the most current and accurate data available from NLM.