Articles | Volume 6, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/jbji-6-73-2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/jbji-6-73-2021
Original full-length article
 | 
12 Jan 2021
Original full-length article |  | 12 Jan 2021

Bioactive glass S53P4 vs. autologous bone graft for filling defects in patients with chronic osteomyelitis and infected non-unions – a single center experience

Eva Steinhausen, Rolf Lefering, Martin Glombitza, Nikolaus Brinkmann, Carsten Vogel, Bastian Mester, and Marcel Dudda

Viewed

Total article views: 1,289 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
932 311 46 1,289 29 31
  • HTML: 932
  • PDF: 311
  • XML: 46
  • Total: 1,289
  • BibTeX: 29
  • EndNote: 31
Views and downloads (calculated since 12 Jan 2021)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 12 Jan 2021)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,207 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,207 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 25 Apr 2024
Short summary
We compared the outcome of bioactive glass S53P4 as bone substitute versus autologous bone grafts for filling defects in patients with infected non-union. Our comparison of the outcomes revealed no significant differences between the groups with respect to recurrence of infection, bone healing, full weight bearing, or complications in general. Our results are promising. BAG seems to be an appropriate bone substitute. Further studies with larger numbers of patients are required.