This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burchardt, H.
Right arrow Articles by Enneking, W. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Burchardt, H.
Right arrow Articles by Enneking, W. F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 60, Issue 8 1082-1090, Copyright © 1978 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc

JOURNAL CONTENTS

Freeze-dried allogeneic segmental cortical-bone grafts in dogs

H Burchardt, H Jones, F Glowczewskie, C Rudner and WF Enneking

Forty-four adult male mongrel dogs were used to compare segmental cortical freeze-dried allogeneic bone grafts with fresh autogenous, freeze-dried autogenous, and fresh allogeneic segmental cortical grafts. Group I consisted of bilateral fresh autografts as external controls; Group II, a fresh autograft on one side for internal control and a freeze-dried autogenous graft on the other side to evaluate the effect of freeze-drying on repair; Group III, a fresh autograft on one side and a fresh allograft on the other side to measure the differences between autogenous and allogeneic grafts; and Group IV, a fresh autograft on one side and a freeze-dried allogeneic graft on the other to see if freeze-drying altered the repair of allogeneic grafts. The grafts were analyzed qualitatively over a six-month period by the use of interval roentgenograms to determine the times of graft-host union and the incidence of fatigue fractures. Six months after operation, the repair processes in the four groups were compared quantitatively with respect to biological repair and physical strength using torsional stress-testing, tetracycline labeling, and microradiography. The results indicate both qualitatively and quantitatively that: (1) fresh bilateral segmental cortical autografts show reproducible characteristics, so that the canine fibula furnishes a satisfactory model (Group I); (2) freeze-drying does not inhibit the repair process per se (Group II); (3) fresh allografts are rejected in varying degrees of intensity (Group III); and (4) freeze-drying does not protect cortical allogeneic grafts from such rejection (Group IV).
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
F. S. HADDAD, D. S. GARBUZ, B. A. MASRI, C. P. DUNCAN, C. R. HUTCHISON, and A. E. GROSS
Instructional Course Lectures, The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons - Femoral Bone Loss in Patients Managed with Revision Hip Replacement: Results of Circumferential Allograft Replacement*{{dagger}}
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., March 1, 1999; 81(3): 420 - 36.
[Full Text]

Home page
 Am J Sports MedHome page
J. L. Pinkowski, P. R. Reiman, and S.-L. Chen
Human lymphocyte reaction to freeze-dried allograft and xenograft ligamentous tissue
Am. J. Sports Med., September 1, 1989; 17(5): 595 - 600.
[Abstract] [PDF]