Skip to content

Comparative Efficacy of the Masquelet Versus Titanium Mesh Cage Techniques for the Treatment of Large Long Bone Defects

The Comparative Efficacy of the Masquelet Versus Titanium Mesh Cage Reconstruction Techniques for the Treatment of Large Long Bone Deficiencies

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02015390
Enrollment
16
Registered
2013-12-19
Start date
2013-10-01
Completion date
2019-12-31
Last updated
2021-06-28

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Segmental Long Bone Defects

Keywords

bone defects, iatrogenic resection, titanium mesh cage, biomembrane, Masquelet technique

Brief summary

The United States Department of Defense (DoD) is funding exciting new research at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation that can be a major improvement in the treatment of extremity trauma involving segmental bone loss. These devastating injuries occur frequently in both civilians and the military. They typically result from motor vehicle accidents, high-energy fractures, gunshot injuries, and blast injuries, but also from the surgical removal of a bone segment because of infection or tumor. Despite many modern medical advances in this area, bone healing that can adequately replace bone loss and restore pre-injury limb function is extremely difficult to achieve. Existing standard treatment procedures are exceedingly complicated, require highly specialized equipment and clinical skills, and usually require many surgical procedures over many months or years. Despite these effort and costs, major complications usually occur with all the standard treatment options, the patient's ability to return to an acceptable functional status is typically low, and, therefore, many of these patients have their limbs amputated. The UTMB Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation will conduct a DoD-funded clinical trial to determine and compare the advantages of two new and innovative surgical bone defect treatment techniques that can be significantly more effective for wounded warriors or civilian patients and with these conditions. One treatment method, called the Masquelet Technique, involves two-stage surgery: the first one to create a biomembrane around the defect by applying a cement spacer, and then the second one for cement spacer removal and defect bone grafting. The other method, developed by UTMB physicians, is the Cage Technique and it comprises one-stage surgery in which a special hollow, fenestrated, titanium cage filled with bone graft is implanted in the defect. Initial clinical experience with both of these techniques has been very promising, but to date, there has been no prospective clinical study comparing the two new methods of defect treatment. Identifying an optimal surgical bone defect reconstructive technique would significantly improve the clinical outcomes of patients with these challenging conditions.

Detailed description

Background: Segmental long bone defects remain a formidable treatment challenge. All the existing standard treatment options have major limitations and often culminate in limb amputation or permanent functional deficits. We developed a novel, one-stage alternative treatment for segmental bone loss that utilizes the cylindrical titanium mesh cage (CTMC) in combination with bone graft, and have established its clinical merits in an initial clinical series. Shortly thereafter, Masquelet reported another new defect reconstruction technique that involves two-stage approach: first inducing biomembrane formation with a cement spacer, and subsequent spacer removal and bone grafting. Both the Masquelet and the CTMC techniques are based on the principle of graft containment to render optimal potential for graft to heal the defect; however, they differ in primary biological versus biomechanical functions provided by the containment. The Masquelet biomembrane containment, being a rich source of vascular supply and growth factors, creates an excellent biological milieu for graft, but requires an additional surgery and is associated with prolonged protected weight bearing until graft consolidation occurs. Conversely, the benefit of the CTMC technique is primarily the biomechanical support it provides for graft and the reconstructed extremity, thereby permitting immediate functional restoration without mobility or weight bearing restrictions during the bone healing process. Although both Masquelet and the CTMC techniques have been effective in the treatment of large segmental bone defects, there is no prospective, well-controlled study comparing their therapeutic efficacies for specific clinical indications. Objective: Determining the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the Masquelet (Arm I) versus the CTMC technique (Arm II) in combination with reamer-irrigator-aspirator (RIA) harvested autograft (Option A) or allograft-demineralized bone matrix (DBM) composite (Option II) in the treatment of segmental long bone deficiencies. Specific Aims: 1) Establish the effects of the specific patient and bone defect characteristics on the treatment outcome; 2) Determine and compare clinical efficacies of the reconstruction techniques (Arm I vs Arm II); 3) Establish the merits of using specific graft type (Option A vs Option B) within and across each study arms; 3) Develop a quantitative predictive model to improve clinical decision making, and 4) Assess and compare the cost-effectiveness and resource expenditures incurred by the specific treatment selection. Study Design: Single-center, multi-site, two-arm, randomized clinical trial. Thirty patients with segmental bone deficiency as a result of trauma, gunshot, iatrogenic resection due to infection, nonunion, or neoplasm will be enrolled and randomized to receive either the Masquelet (Arm I) or the CTMC as definitive defect treatment (Arm II). Bone graft selection will include either RIA-harvested autograft (Option A) or allograft croutons-DBM composite (Option B). Patients will be followed up to18 months. The data collected will include routine patient baseline information, systemic and extremity injury characteristics, bone defect characteristics, pre- and post-operative clinical examinations and imaging, validated functional outcomes measures, and associated cost expenditure. Descriptive statistics will be used to analyze and compare the results specifically related to the rate of defect healing and functional recovery. Paired t-test will be used to test the effects of the defect reconstruction option on the outcome measures. Analysis of covariance will be used for pair-wise comparison between the arms and within/across each bone graft option. Multiple models will be used to produce an accurate predictive model which accounts for possible morbidities and interactions. Derived from the joint distribution of costs and effects, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be established and compared for the study arms. Military Relevance: Many combat injuries involve extremity trauma with segmental bone loss, and the extent to which they can be successfully treated impacts the function and quality of life of the wounded warrior. The Masquelet and the CTMC been developed as innovative, biologically-sound defect reconstructive techniques to address the complexity of therapeutic concerns associated with these conditions (ie, immediate restoration of limb alignment/stability, early motion, weight bearing). The proposed trial aims to compare the efficacy of these techniques to identify the one that can be instantly adopted and applied by military surgeons.

Interventions

PROCEDUREAutogenous RIA bone grafting

After aseptic defect and adequate soft tissue coverage have been achieved, the defect reconstruction technique will include autogenous bone grafting harvesting using Reamer-Irrigator-Aspirator (RIA) and packing it within the defect.

PROCEDUREAllogeneic bone grafting

After aseptic defect and adequate soft tissue coverage have been achieved, the defect reconstruction technique will include defect packing with allogeneic bone graft croutons combined with demineralized bone matrix (DBM).

Sponsors

United States Department of Defense
CollaboratorFED
The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 99 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

Presence of an extremity long bone (femur, tibia, humerus, ulna, radius) segmental defect requiring surgical reconstruction with at least one of the following etiologies: * traumatic segmental bone defect that warrants surgical reconstruction; * acquired bony nonunion (not congenital) treatable by segmental resection and reconstruction; * local osteomyelitis (dormant or active) treatable by segmental bone resection and reconstruction; * localized, nonmalignant tumor with involvement of bone diaphysis treatable by segmental bone resection and reconstruction.

Exclusion criteria

* Non-segmental defects (eg, defect in continuity involving only single cortex); * Inability or contraindications to achieve stabilization with an intramedullary (IM) nail; * Insufficient defect size (humerus defects \<5 cm; femur or tibia defect \<2 cm in length); * Extremity unsuitable for salvage; * Patients with inadequate neuro-vascular status; * Defect and/or soft tissue status ineligible for surgical reconstruction; * Ipsilateral extremity defect (eg, tibia and femur ipsilateral defects); * Skeletal immaturity (open growth plate and/or age \<18 years); * Known allergic reaction to titanium implants; * Disseminated osteomyelitis throughout the bone; * Active systemic infection at time of surgery; * Congenital / genetic etiology of nonunion (congenital pseudoarthrosis, osteogenesis imperfecta, etc.); * Women who are pregnant or nursing; * Women who intend to become pregnant during the study followup (ie, 2 years); * Disseminated and/or nonresectable malignant tumor involving bone; * Patients with active compartment syndrome; * Prisoners; * Patients considered as non-compliant with medical and follow up care; * Patients using narcotics, abusing prescription drugs (within last 2 years); * Patients with alcohol abuse; * Patients deemed incapable of following instructions pertaining to post operative care due to mental or medical condition; * Patients deemed ineligible due to medico-social concerns.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography2 weeks postopBiplanar radiography to demonstrate adequate hardware placement and defect alignment in all patients in the Masquelet and Cage trial arms.
Number of Participants With Defect Healing - Computed Tomography12 months postopRadiographic spatial determination of bone defect healing

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Pain Assessment: Brief Pain Inventory2 weeks postopBrief Pain Inventory
Overall Functional Outcome Score2 weeks postopShort-Form 36
Extremity-Specific Outcome Score2 weeks postopLower Limb Core Scale or Short Form the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand
Change in Quality of Life: Quality-Adjusted Life-Yearfrom 2 weeks postop to 18 months postopAn improvement in mean Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) calculated from the subjective pain questionnaire throughout the trial followup as a result of bone defect treatment for patients in the Masquelet Arm versus the Cage Arm. QALY values ranged from 0 to 1 referring to death and perfect health, respectively. There was apparent improvement in QALY at 6 month and 12 month post treatment for both trial arm patients compared to the preperative QALY scores. No statistically significant difference at any time point of the followup between the trial arms were noted.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Pre-assignment details

There were 8 screen failures

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Masquelet Defect Reconstruction
The Masquelet defect reconstruction is a two-stage technique for the treatment of large segmental bone defects that involves the induction of a biomembrane using a poly(methylmethacrylate)(PMMA) cement spacer followed by cement removal and bone grafting of the defect while preserving the biomembrane. The biomembrane not only assists in retaining the bone graft, but serves as a rich source of vascular supply and growth factors which constitute an excellent biological milieu for the graft to consolidate and heal the defect. The first stage of the Masquelet defect reconstruction involves creating a biomembrane with a PMMA spacer; whereas the second stage performed 6-8 weeks later involves the spacer removal and packing the defect enclosed with the biomembrane with autogenous (RIA) or allogeneic bone graft. The biomembrane serves as a biological enclosure for the graft, provides vascular supply and growth factors, thereby creating an excellent milieu for the graft to consolidate.
9
Titanium Cage Reconstruction
The cylindrical titanium mesh cage technique is a single-stage surgical procedure that immediately restores limb anatomy and alignment, and provides limb stability sufficient enough for early, unrestricted mobilization while permitting bone and soft tissue healing. It involves the implantation of a fenestrated cylindrical titanium mesh cage packed with autogenous bone graft (harvested using Reamer-Irrigator-Aspirator) or with allogeneic bone graft. After aseptic defect and soft tissue bed is achieved, the titanium cage reconstruction procedure involves the implantation of a fenestrated cylindrical titanium cage packed with simultaneously harvested autogenous bone graft using RIA or with allogeneic bone graft. The decision about the graft option is left for the treating physician, following the discussion with the patient. The cage provide a biomechanical enclosure for the graft, allows the graft to be loaded, and, thereby consolidate and heal the defect.
7
Total16

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyAdverse Event03
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up10
Overall StudyPhysician Decision01

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicMasquelet Defect ReconstructionTitanium Cage ReconstructionTotal
Age, Continuous53.56 years46.43 years50.43 years
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
2 Participants2 Participants4 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
7 Participants5 Participants12 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
2 Participants4 Participants6 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
7 Participants3 Participants10 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 80 / 7
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 80 / 7
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 83 / 7

Outcome results

Primary

Number of Participants With Defect Healing - Computed Tomography

Radiographic spatial determination of bone defect healing

Time frame: 12 months postop

Population: 12 month CT imaging

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Masquelet Defect ReconstructionNumber of Participants With Defect Healing - Computed Tomography8 Participants
Titanium Cage ReconstructionNumber of Participants With Defect Healing - Computed Tomography3 Participants
Primary

Number of Participants With Defect Healing - Computed Tomography

Radiographic spatial determination of bone defect healing

Time frame: 18 months postop

Population: 18 month CT imaging

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Masquelet Defect ReconstructionNumber of Participants With Defect Healing - Computed Tomography8 Participants
Titanium Cage ReconstructionNumber of Participants With Defect Healing - Computed Tomography3 Participants
Primary

Number of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography

Radiographic imaging to demonstrate bone graft consolidation and callus formation in the patients with the Masquelet reconstruction and cage techniques.

Time frame: 12 months postop

Population: 12 month radiographic imaging

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Masquelet Defect ReconstructionNumber of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography8 Participants
Titanium Cage ReconstructionNumber of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography3 Participants
Primary

Number of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography

Radiographic biplanar determination of bone defect healing to demonstrate bone graft consolidation and defect healing in all Masquelet- and Cage-treated patients who completed the trial.

Time frame: 18 months postop

Population: 18 month radiographic imaging

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Masquelet Defect ReconstructionNumber of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography8 Participants
Titanium Cage ReconstructionNumber of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography3 Participants
Primary

Number of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography

Radiographic assessment to demonstrate the adequate bony alignment and hardware placements for all patients in the Masquelet and Cage trial arms maintained upon patients' active weightbearing.

Time frame: 3 months postop

Population: 3 month radiographic imaging

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Masquelet Defect ReconstructionNumber of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography8 Participants
Titanium Cage ReconstructionNumber of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography3 Participants
Primary

Number of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography

Biplanar radiography to demonstrate adequate hardware placement and defect alignment in all patients in the Masquelet and Cage trial arms.

Time frame: 2 weeks postop

Population: 2 week radiographic imaging

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Masquelet Defect ReconstructionNumber of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography9 Participants
Titanium Cage ReconstructionNumber of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography7 Participants
Primary

Number of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography

Biplanar radiography to demonstrate defect and graft alignment in all patients in the Masquelet and Cage trial arms.

Time frame: 6 weeks postop

Population: 6 week radiographic imaging

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Masquelet Defect ReconstructionNumber of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography9 Participants
Titanium Cage ReconstructionNumber of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography3 Participants
Primary

Number of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography

Radiographic biplanar determination of bone defect healing progression.

Time frame: 6 months postop

Population: 6 month radiographic imaging

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Masquelet Defect ReconstructionNumber of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography8 Participants
Titanium Cage ReconstructionNumber of Participants With Defect Healing - Plain Radiography3 Participants
Secondary

Change in Quality of Life: Quality-Adjusted Life-Year

An improvement in mean Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) calculated from the subjective pain questionnaire throughout the trial followup as a result of bone defect treatment for patients in the Masquelet Arm versus the Cage Arm. QALY values ranged from 0 to 1 referring to death and perfect health, respectively. There was apparent improvement in QALY at 6 month and 12 month post treatment for both trial arm patients compared to the preperative QALY scores. No statistically significant difference at any time point of the followup between the trial arms were noted.

Time frame: from 2 weeks postop to 18 months postop

Secondary

Extremity-Specific Outcome Score

Lower Limb Core Scale or Short Form the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand

Time frame: 6 weeks postop

Secondary

Extremity-Specific Outcome Score

Lower Limb Core Scale or Short Form the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand

Time frame: 3 months postop

Secondary

Extremity-Specific Outcome Score

Lower Limb Core Scale or Short Form the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand

Time frame: 6 months postop

Secondary

Extremity-Specific Outcome Score

Lower Limb Core Scale or Short Form the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand

Time frame: 12 months postop

Secondary

Extremity-Specific Outcome Score

Lower Limb Core Scale or Short Form the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand

Time frame: 18 months postop

Secondary

Extremity-Specific Outcome Score

Lower Limb Core Scale or Short Form the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand

Time frame: 2 weeks postop

Secondary

Overall Functional Outcome Score

Short-Form 36

Time frame: 6 weeks postop

Secondary

Overall Functional Outcome Score

Short-Form 36

Time frame: 3 months postop

Secondary

Overall Functional Outcome Score

Short-Form 36

Time frame: 6 months postop

Secondary

Overall Functional Outcome Score

Short-Form 36

Time frame: 12 months postop

Secondary

Overall Functional Outcome Score

Among patients who completed the trial for both the Masquelet and Cage arms, SF-36 demonstrated an overall progressive improvement in the score comportment, such as in Physical function (PF); Mental health (MH); Social function (SC); Bodily pain (BP); Change in health (CH); Vitality (VT); Role limitation - physical (RLP); Role limitation - mental (RLM); Health perception (HP). The most apparent improvements were observed in the Physical function (PF); Mental health (MH); Social function (SC); Bodily pain (BP); Change in health (CH); Vitality (VT) and Health perception (HP). No statistical difference were noted in overall SF-36 scores between the trail arms.

Time frame: 18 months postop

Secondary

Overall Functional Outcome Score

Short-Form 36

Time frame: 2 weeks postop

Secondary

Pain Assessment: Brief Pain Inventory

Brief Pain Inventory

Time frame: 2 weeks postop

Secondary

Pain Assessment: Brief Pain Inventory

Brief Pain Inventory

Time frame: 6 weeks postop

Secondary

Pain Assessment: Brief Pain Inventory

The patients in both the Masquelet and Cage trial arms demonstrated most significant improvement in Brief Pain Inventory scores at 12 month followup. No statistical differences were observed in pain score among the patients from both trial arms.

Time frame: 6 months postop

Secondary

Pain Assessment: Brief Pain Inventory

The trial patients in both Masquelet and Cage arms demonstrated continued improvements in pains score at 12 months followup. No significant difference in pains core were noted between the trial arms.

Time frame: 12 months postop

Secondary

Pain Assessment: Brief Pain Inventory

Brief Pain Inventory

Time frame: 18 months postop

Secondary

Pain Assessment: Brief Pain Inventory

Brief Pain Inventory

Time frame: 3 months postop

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026