Progress in biological reconstruction and enhanced bone revitalization for bone defects.
Yamamoto N., Hayashi K., Tsuchiya H.
Prospective Study, published in J Orthop Sci (2019) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Prospective Study
- Journal
- J Orthop Sci (2019)
- Country
- Japan
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 30797666
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.jos.2019.01.015
- Citations
- 22
Abstract (original English)
Bone defect reconstruction with artificial materials may produce good functional recovery in the short term. Over time, the durability of artificial materials becomes an issue, and therefore, artificial materials cannot be considered a permanent solution to reconstruction. For long-term outcomes, the goal is to regain function, permanence, and form that are as close to normal as possible. Thus, physiological materials are desirable for use in reconstruction. Biological reconstruction involves the use of materials that are modified in vivo following reconstruction of bone defects. The goal is to achieve bone union, bone revival and remodeling, with biointegration of soft tissue and bone. Allograft use has been the mainstay of bone defect reconstruction in most parts of the world, although in some countries like Japan, allogeneic bone is difficult to obtain due to socio-religious concerns. Therefore, we developed new biological reconstruction techniques to overcome this problem. Bone derived from distraction osteogenesis is autologous bone, which must be an ideal reconstruction material for its biological affinity, strength, resilience, and immunity to infection. When applying this method to patients with malignant disease however, it is important to preserve as much of the local soft tissue as possible, and the clinician must be especially careful of infection and callus formati
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.