Evaluation between the minimally invasive iliac crest and trephine bone harvesting method for bone harvesting

Dr Sami Faisal Jamdar; Zidan Muead Alanazi; Abdullah Mohammad Alhussain; Aaminah Fatima Jamdar

Volume : IX, Issue : VI, June - 2020

Evaluation between the minimally invasive iliac crest and trephine bone harvesting method for bone harvesting

Dr Sami Faisal Jamdar, Zidan Muead Alanazi, Abdullah Mohammad Alhussain, Aaminah Fatima Jamdar

Abstract :

Background and Aim: Current advances in theory and techniques of bone grafting have been the direct result of extensive research and clinical application This study details the comparison between the Trephine method of iliac crest bone graft harvesting and Minimally invasive method of iliac crest graft harvesting. The differences in surgical technique, the morbidity associated with the two methods have been compared to give an in-depth understanding of the method of harvesting the graft. Materials & Methods: A total of 40 patients between the age ranges of 10 to 20 years were included in the study. The included patients were divided into two groups of 20 patients each. In group A the cortico-cancellous bone harvested from iliac crest by Trephine method. The group B had cortico-cancellous bone harvested by minimally invasive method. Results: Even within the both groups pain experience became better as the days progressed and at the time of discharge all patients were pain free. The day wise improvement in gait was found to be significant for each procedure. It was found that minimally invasive method group mobilized early and returned to normal gait when compared to trephine group. There was no significant difference scar perception or contour deficit at the end of six months. Conclusion & Discussion: Morbidity of the iliac crest donor site in both groups was low. Minimally invasive method of bone harvesting of the iliac crest was found to have less morbidity even when compared to the trephine method of bone harvesting of the iliac crest. Minimally invasive method resulted in small scar in early healing phase, but patients perception of acceptability of scar by both methods were good.