Induced membrane maintains its osteogenic properties even when the second stage of Masquelet’s technique is performed later
- 64 Downloads
Previous clinical studies have shown the effectiveness of bone repair using two-stage surgery called the induced membrane (IM) technique. The optimal wait before the second surgery is said to be 1 month. We have been successfully performing the IM technique while waiting an average of 6 months to carry out the second stage. We hypothesised that the IM maintains its beneficial capabilities, even at a later second stage, and that there is no relation between the speed of bone union and the wait between the first and second stage. We sought to explore the biological properties of ‘older’ IMs sampled to substantiate our clinical observations.
Thirty-four patients with a critical size defect were treated with the IM technique. In seven of these patients, pieces of the IM were collected 4.2–14.7 months after the first surgery. IM-derived cell phenotype and osteogenic potential were investigated using in vitro studies (n = 4) while IM nature and function were investigated by histology and immunohistochemistry (n = 3).
The median wait before the second surgery was 5.8 months [range 1.2–14.7] and bone healing occurred at 7.6 months [range 2.5–49.9] for 26 patients. IMs aged 4.2–14.7 months contained mesenchymal stromal cells with in vitro osteogenic potential and corresponded to a multipotent tissue with osteogenic and chondrogenic capabilities contributing to osteogenesis over time.
This preliminary study suggests the IM retains its powerful osteogenic properties over time and that waiting longer between the two surgeries does not delay bone union.
KeywordsBone union Induced membrane Experimental studies Multipotent tissue
The authors thank Fiona Ecarnot (EA3920, University Hospital Besancon, France) and Joanne Archambault, PhD for editorial assistance.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors confirm that there are no conflicts of interest.
- 12.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.0b013e31821ffa8201241398-201107000-00017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Zwetyenga N, Fricain JC, De Mones E, Gindraux F. Induced membrane technique in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 2012;113(4):231–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stomax.2012.05.008s0035-1768(12)00117-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Moris V, Loisel F, Cheval D, See LA, Tchurukdichian A, Pluvy I, et al. Functional and radiographic evaluation of the treatment of traumatic bone loss of the hand using the Masquelet technique. Hand Surg Rehabil. 2016;35(2):114–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hansur.2015.11.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Obert L, Nallet A, Melin M, Zwetyenga N, Gindraux F (2012) Histological, immunological and in vitro analysis of human induced membrane. In: Medical S (ed) Technique de Masquelet p. 81–92.Google Scholar
- 21.Shah SR, Smith BT, Tatara AM, Molina ER, Lee EJ, Piepergerdes TC, et al. Effects of local antibiotic delivery from porous space maintainers on infection clearance and induction of an osteogenic membrane in an infected bone defect. Tissue Eng Part A. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2016.0389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar