Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 3, 2025
Biological Compatibility Profile on Biomaterials for Bone Regeneration
Published on: November 16, 2018
Utilisation of bioactive glass S53P4 inside an induced membrane for severe bone defect with high risk of infection: a
Jean-Charles Aurégan1, Benoît Villain2, Martin Glombitza3
1Department of Orthopaedic, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, Antoine Béclère Hospital, AP-HP, Paris Sud University, 157 rue de la Porte de Trivaux, 92140 Clamart, France; Laboratory of Bioengineering and Biomechanics for Bone Articulation (B2OA - UMR CNRS 7052), Paris-Diderot University, 10 avenue de Verdun, 75010 Paris, France.
Background:
The induced membrane technique has been developed to address bone defect of critical size from various origins. Despite its exceptional efficacy, several cases underwent a failure, which is regularly associated with a septic problem. The best way to conduct in this situation remains debated.
Purpose:
To estimate use of bioactive glass S53P4 (BAG-53P4) in induced membrane technique failures or with an anticipated high risk of failure.
Material And Method:
We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients from several medical centers in Europe where BAG-S53P4 has been used inside an induced membrane. The etiology of the defect, the bone fixation used, the delay the bioactive glass was placed, the reason why the bioactive glass was used and the results were reported.
Results:
Eight cases were included (3 women and 5 men). Mean age was 43 years (16-82; Standard deviation 23). Mean height was 171 cm (162-184; SD 7), mean weight was 69 kg (60-85; SD 8) and Body Mass Index was 23,39 M/Kg2 (21,9-25,1; SD 1,22). Mean length of defect was 68 mm (40-100mm, SD 23). All patients received BAG-S53P4 granules (BonAlive Biomaterials Ltd, Turku, Finland) to fill the resultant cavity (3 as a stand-alone in the induced membrane and 5 mixed with autograft). Three patients were implanted with BAG-S53P4 during the second stage of a first induced membrane technique because of a high risk of infection (three open fractures); two patients were implanted with BAG-S53P4 during the second stage of a first induced membrane technique because of the great size of the defect (two infectious non-union); two patients were implanted with BAG-S53P4 as a third stage of induced membrane technique, i.e. inside a previously grafted membrane, because of a recurrence of the infection; and one patient was implanted with BAG-S53P4 during the second stage of a second induced membrane technique to avoid a new failure. At a follow-up of 16 months, all healed without any recurrence of the infection.
Discussion:
Critical size bone defects caused by an open fracture or an active infection can usually be addressed by the induced membrane technique. However, some cases are at high risk of failure because of the occurrence or recurrence of an infection. In these cases, bioactive glass may help the surgeon to improve the rate of bone union.
Conclusion:
BAG-S53P4 may be considered as bone graft in an induced membrane technique, especially when there is a high probability of occurrence or recurrence of a bone infection.
