Radiological and Histological Analyses of Nonrigid Versus Rigid Fixation for Free Bone Block Procedures in a Rabbit Model of Glenoid Defects

• Published in: The American journal of sports medicine Vol. 51; no. 3; p. 743
• Main Authors: Xu, Junjie, Wu, Chenliang, Han, Kang, Zhang, Xueying, Ye, Zipeng, Jiang, Jia, Yan, Xiaoyu, Su, Wei, Zhao, Jinzhong
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.03.2023
• Subjects: Animals; Bone Resorption; Bone Transplantation - methods; Joint Instability - surgery; Rabbits; Scapula - diagnostic imaging; Scapula - surgery; Shoulder Joint - diagnostic imaging; Shoulder Joint - surgery; X-Ray Microtomography; glenoid bone boss; radiological; free bone block; rigid; histological; nonrigid
• ISSN: 1552-3365
• DOI: 10.1177/03635465221145695

Nonrigid fixation techniques have been recently introduced in free bone block (FBB) procedures to treat substantial glenoid bone loss in patients with anterior shoulder instability. However, the radiological and histological effectiveness of nonrigid fixation versus conventional rigid fixation have not been comprehensively understood in vivo. To (1) explore the radiological and histological characteristics of nonrigid fixation for FBB procedures in a rabbit model of glenoid defects and (2) further compare them with those of conventional rigid fixation. Controlled laboratory study. Unilateral shoulder glenoid defects were created in 36 mature New Zealand White rabbits, of which 24 underwent FBB procedures using allogenic iliac crest bone and were randomly divided into rigid fixation (RF) and nonrigid fixation (N-RF) groups, with the remaining divided into 2 control groups: 6 with sham surgery for glenoid defects (GD group) and 6 native glenoids (normal group). In the RF and N-RF groups, 6 rabbits were sacrificed at 6 or 12 weeks postoperatively for radiological and histological analyses of the reconstructed glenoid, and all rabbits in the GD and normal groups were sacrificed at 12 weeks. The radiological glenoid morphology was evaluated via micro-computed tomography. Moreover, the graft-glenoid healing and graft remodeling processes were determined using histological staining. At 6 weeks, both the N-RF and RF groups had similarly improved radiological axial radian and en face area of the glenoid compared with the GD group, but the N-RF group showed superiority in restoration of the glenoid radian and area compared with the RF group at 12 weeks, with the native glenoid as the baseline. Histologically, the bone graft in both groups was substantively integrated into the deficient glenoid neck at 6 and 12 weeks, showing similar osseous healing processes at the graft-glenoid junction. Moreover, the bone graft histologically presented similar regenerated vascular density, total graft bone, and integrated graft bone in both groups. In contrast, the N-RF group had a different remodeling profile on radiological and histological analyses regarding regional bone resorption, mineralization, and fibrous tissue replacement during osseointegration. Compared with rigid fixation, nonrigid fixation resulted in superior reconstructed glenoid morphology radiologically and similar graft-glenoid osseous healing histologically, showing different graft remodeling profiles of regional bone resorption, mineralization, and fibrous tissue replacement. The nonrigid fixation technique can be feasible for FBB procedures to treat glenoid bone loss in anterior shoulder instability. More clinical evidence is required to determine its pros and cons compared with conventional rigid fixation.