Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

⁘ࡡ䌀ںtroduction: The literature review does not allow us to identify which technique, between the osteoarticular allografts and the megaprostheses, gives the best results for the knee reconstruction after resection of bone tumors. Therefore we reviewed the complications, the implant survival and the joint mobilities of both techniques to compare their results at the CUSL. Materials : We retrospectively reviewed the files of 26 patients who had megaprostheses reconstruction between 17/06/1987 and 20/01/2015.The average age was 24 years (range 9-58) and the average bone resection was 14,3cm (range 5-22). We reviewed the files of 11 patients who underwent an osteoarticular allograft reconstruction between 10/10/1994 and 14/01/2013. The average age was 14 years (range 9-27) and the average bone resection was 18cm (range 11-42).Results: For the megaprostheses, the average follow-up was 86 months (range 7-347) and the average survival time was 53 months (range 7-138). One patient died during the follow-up. The failures of the megaprostheses were due to : 5 aseptic loosening’s, 3 structural failures and 1 failure of the expandable mechanism. In the end, 2 patients had total femur prosthesis and 2 patients a allograft-prosthesis composites. The joint mobility was 99° for the flexion and -6 for the extension. For the allograft, the average follow-up was 44 months (range 11-219) and the average survival time was 28 months (range 3-86). Four patients died during the follow-up. The failures of the allografts were due to 3 deep infections associated with wound dehiscences, 2 nonunions, 2 local recurrences, 1 fracture and 1 fracture associated with nonunion. The joint mobility was 96° for the flexion and -22 for the extension. In the end, 2 patients underwent an amputation, 5 patients were converted to a megaprostheses and 1patient had total femur prosthesis. Conclusion: By comparing the results of both reconstructions, megaprostheses give better results than osteoarticular allografts in terms of implant survival, incidence of complications, reoperation and joint mobility. There were more local recurrences and deaths in the allograft group. In each option, complications are frequent and the risk of reoperation is high. The survival of the osteoarticular allografts and megaprostheses of our series were shorter compared with those reported in the literature but the complications were similar. Introduction: Dans la littérature, il n'est pas simple d'identifier quelle technique, entre les allogreffes ostéoarticulaires et les mégaprothèses, donne les meilleurs résultats pour la reconstruction du genou après résection de tumeurs osseuses. Nous avons donc revu les complications, les durées de vie et les mobilités articulaires des deux techniques afin de comparer leurs résultats au sein des Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc. Matériel : Nous avons revu rétrospectivement les dossiers de 26 patients ayant subi une reconstruction par mégaprothèse entre le 17/06/1987 et le 20/01/2015. L'âge moyen était de 24 ans (extrêmes 9-58) et la résection moyenne était de 14,3cm (extrêmes 5-22). Les dossiers de 11 patients ayant subi une reconstruction par allogreffe ostéoarticulaire entre le 10/10/994 et le 14/01/2013 ont été revus. L'âge moyen était de 14 ans (extrêmes 9- 27) et la résection moyenne de 18cm (extrêmes 11-42).Résultats : Le suivi moyen des mégaprothèses était de 86 mois (extrêmes 7-347) et la durée de vie moyenne était de 53 mois (extrêmes 7-138).Un patient est décédé. L'échec des mégaprothèses était dû à : 5 descellements aseptiques, 3 fractures d'implant et l défaillance du mécanisme d'allongement. Finalement, 2 patients ont eu une conversion en fémur totalement prothétique et 2 patients une reconstruction composite avec prothèse et allogreffe. La mobilité articulaire moyenne était de 99° pour la flexion et -6° pour l'extension. Le suivi moyen des patients avec une allogreffe ostéoarticulaire était de 44 mois (extrêmes 11-219) et la durée de vie moyenne était de 28 mois (extrêmes 3-86 mois). 4 patients sont décédés. L'échec des allogreffes était dû à : 3 infections profondes avec déhiscences de plaie, 2 pseudarthroses, 2 récidives locales, 1 fracture et 1 fracture associée à une pseudarthrose. La mobilité articulaire était de 96° pour la flexion et -22° pour l'extension. Finalement, 2 patients ont subi une amputation, 5 une conversion en mégaprothèse et 1 en fémur totalement prothétique. Conclusion : En comparant les résultats des deux techniques, les mégaprothèses donnent de meilleurs résultats que les allogreffes ostéoarticulaires en termes de durée de vie, d'incidence des complications, de ré intervention et de mobilité articulaire. Un nombre plus important de récidive et de décès ont été rencontrés dans le groupe allogreffe. Pour les deux techniques, les complications sont fréquentes et le risque de réintervention est élevé. En comparaison avec les résultats de la littérature, la durée de survie des allogreffes ostéoarticulaires et des mégaprothèses de notre série était inférieure à celle des articles revus, mais les complications étaient comparables.

Allografts --- Knee Prosthesis --- Metastasectomy

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

"" Le coeur de Simon migrait dans un autre endroit du pays, ses reins, son foie et ses poumons gagnaient d'autres provinces, ils filaient vers d'autres corps. " Réparer les vivants est le roman d'une transplantation cardiaque. Telle une chanson de geste, il tisse les présences et les espaces, les voix et les actes qui vont se relayer en vingt-quatre heures exactement. Roman de tension et de patience, d'accélérations paniques et de pauses méditatives, il trace une aventure métaphysique, à la fois collective et intime, où le coeur, au-delà de sa fonction organique, demeure le siège des affects et le symbole de l'amour. Ce roman a reçu dix prix littéraires parmi lesquels le prix du Roman des étudiants France Culture Télérarna2014,Ie Grand Prix RTL Lire 2014, le prix des lecteurs L'Express BFMTV 2014 et le prix Relay des Voyageurs 2014 avec Europe 1."-- back cover.

Organ donors --- Heart --- Popular literature. --- Transplantation --- Patients --- Heart Transplantation --- Allografts

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This book describes succinctly the factors which affect the incorporation of massive and morsellised allografts after transplantation. Unless special precautions are taken, massive allografts when implanted can undergo stress fatigue, due to the limited incorporation at the graft-host interface. Immunological and cell signalling growth factors can be shown to greatly influence the behaviour of the graft. The bone-biological processes are illustrated in terms of demineralised bone, which can initiate bone induction due to the protection and availability of the original bone-morphogenic protein.

Bone-grafting. --- Homografts. --- Allogeneic homografts --- Allografts --- Homologous transplants --- Transplantation of organs, tissues, etc. --- Bones --- Grafting of bone --- Osteoplasty --- Homografts --- Surgery --- Surgery, Experimental --- Surgery, Plastic --- Transplantation

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

CD40 Ligand --- Antigens, CD40 --- Graft Rejection --- Inflammation --- Transplantation, Homologous --- Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A --- physiology. --- immunology. --- etiology. --- Theses --- CD40 Antigens --- physiology --- immunology --- etiology --- Allogeneic Grafting --- Allogeneic Transplantation --- Allografting --- Homografting --- Homologous Transplantation --- Transplantation, Allogeneic --- Grafting, Allogeneic --- Allogeneic Cells --- Allografts --- transplantation

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Materials science and engineering are strongly developing tools with increasing impact in the biotechnological and biomedical areas. Interestingly, research in molecular and cellular biology is often at the core of the design and development of materials-based approaches, providing biological rationale. Focused on research relying on biology–materials interaction, IJMS launched a Special Issue named “Cells and Materials for Disease Modeling and Regenerative Medicine”. The aim of the Special Issue was to generate a compilation of in vitro and in vivo strategies based on cell–material interactions. This book compiles the papers published in that Special Issue and includes a selection of six original scientific experimental articles and six comprehensive reviews. We are convinced that this collection of articles shows representative examples of the state of the art in the field, unveiling the relevance of materials research in generating new regenerative medicine and disease modeling approaches.

Research & information: general --- Leigh syndrome --- mitochondrial disorder --- iPSC --- NSC --- neuron --- disease modeling --- mtDNA --- high hydrostatic pressure --- devitalization --- decellularization --- allografts --- regenerative medicine --- bone and cartilage regeneration --- dentogenesis --- amelogenesis --- dentinogenesis --- cementogenesis --- drug release materials --- scaffolds --- odontogenic cells --- stem cells --- whole-tooth regeneration --- psoriasis --- cyclic adenosine monophosphate --- cholera toxin --- isoproterenol --- tissue engineering --- extracellular matrix --- collagen --- elastin --- bladder --- compliance --- microarchitecture --- biomimicry --- blood cancer --- bone marrow --- niche --- microenvironment --- 3D models --- tumor-on-a-chip --- leukemia --- myeloma --- biomaterials --- cytokines --- growth factors --- cardiac tissue regeneration --- adipose tissue --- fibrosis --- in vitro models --- in vivo models --- dental pulp stem cells --- osteogenesis --- rheumatoid arthritis --- mesenchymal stromal cells --- co-culture --- 3D cell culture --- explants --- joint-on-a-chip --- piezoelectric --- electroactive --- patterning --- cell differentiation --- bone tissue engineering --- Leigh syndrome --- mitochondrial disorder --- iPSC --- NSC --- neuron --- disease modeling --- mtDNA --- high hydrostatic pressure --- devitalization --- decellularization --- allografts --- regenerative medicine --- bone and cartilage regeneration --- dentogenesis --- amelogenesis --- dentinogenesis --- cementogenesis --- drug release materials --- scaffolds --- odontogenic cells --- stem cells --- whole-tooth regeneration --- psoriasis --- cyclic adenosine monophosphate --- cholera toxin --- isoproterenol --- tissue engineering --- extracellular matrix --- collagen --- elastin --- bladder --- compliance --- microarchitecture --- biomimicry --- blood cancer --- bone marrow --- niche --- microenvironment --- 3D models --- tumor-on-a-chip --- leukemia --- myeloma --- biomaterials --- cytokines --- growth factors --- cardiac tissue regeneration --- adipose tissue --- fibrosis --- in vitro models --- in vivo models --- dental pulp stem cells --- osteogenesis --- rheumatoid arthritis --- mesenchymal stromal cells --- co-culture --- 3D cell culture --- explants --- joint-on-a-chip --- piezoelectric --- electroactive --- patterning --- cell differentiation --- bone tissue engineering