Repeated Induced-Membrane Technique Failure without Infection: A Series of Three Consecutive Procedures Performed for a Single Femur Defect

A 40-year-old male was treated using the induced-membrane technique (IMT) for a noninfected, 9 cm long femoral bone defect complicating a lengthening procedure. The interesting case feature lies in the three consecutive IMT procedures that were necessary to achieve complete bone repair in this unusual clinical situation. The first procedure failed because of the lack of graft revascularization likely related to an induced-membrane (IM) alteration demonstrated by histological observations. The second IMT procedure led to partial graft integration interrupted by the elongation nail breakage. At last, the third procedure fully succeeded after nail exchange and iterative iliac bone grafting. Complete bone union was achieved with a poor functional recovery one year after the last procedure and four years following the first cement spacer implantation. By means of clinical and histological observations, we demonstrated that the first and the second IMT failures had two distinct origins, namely, biological and mechanical causes, respectively. Although simple, a successful IMT procedure is not so easy to complete.

[1]  P. Giannoudis,et al.  Mixed results with the Masquelet technique: A fact or a myth? , 2019, Injury.

[2]  R. Sanders,et al.  'Intramedullary Nails Yield Superior Results Compared to Plate Fixation when using the Masquelet Technique in the Femur and Tibia.' , 2019, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[3]  A. Masquelet,et al.  Very long-term results of post-traumatic bone defect reconstruction by the induced membrane technique. , 2019, Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR.

[4]  A. Masquelet Induced Membrane Technique: Pearls and Pitfalls. , 2017, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[5]  M. Hossain,et al.  Induced membrane technique for treating tibial defects gives mixed results , 2017, The bone & joint journal.

[6]  C. Boudot,et al.  Osteoclasts and their precursors are present in the induced‐membrane during bone reconstruction using the Masquelet technique , 2017, Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.

[7]  L. Drago,et al.  Masquelet technique: myth or reality? A systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2016, Injury.

[8]  M. Assal,et al.  The Masquelet procedure gone awry. , 2014, Orthopedics.

[9]  Hannu-Ville Leskelä,et al.  The mechanism of action of induced membranes in bone repair. , 2013, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[10]  Rozalia Dimitriou,et al.  Masquelet technique for the treatment of bone defects: tips-tricks and future directions. , 2011, Injury.

[11]  K. Malizos,et al.  Vascularized fibula transfer for lower limb reconstruction , 2011, Microsurgery.

[12]  A. Masquelet,et al.  The concept of induced membrane for reconstruction of long bone defects. , 2010, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[13]  A C Masquelet,et al.  Induced membranes secrete growth factors including vascular and osteoinductive factors and could stimulate bone regeneration , 2004, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[14]  F. Fitoussi,et al.  [Reconstruction of the long bones by the induced membrane and spongy autograft]. , 2000, Annales de chirurgie plastique et esthetique.

[15]  Diane P. Martin,et al.  Short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire: validity, reliability, and responsiveness. , 1999, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.