ArticlePloS one2023
Decellularized vascularized bone grafts as therapeutic solution for bone reconstruction: A mechanical evaluation.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Partially Demineralized Acellular Bovine Bone Matrix Supports for Bone Healing In Vivo.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Decellularization of Human Digits: A Step Towards Off-the-Shelf Composite Allograft Transplantation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Surgical mechanical properties of perfused decellularized massive bone allografts: An comparative in vivo test.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLarge bone defects are challenging for surgeons. Available reimplanted bone substitutes can't properly restore optimal function along and long term osteointegration of the bone graft. Bone substitute based on the perfusion-decellularization technique seem to be interesting in order to overcome these limitations. We present here an evaluation of the biomechanics of the bones thus obtained. MATERIAL AND
methodsTwo decellularization protocols were chosen for this study. One using Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate (SDS) (D1) and one using NaOH and H2O2 (D2). The decellularization was performed on porcine forearms. We then carried out compression, three-point bending, indentation and screw pull-out tests on each sample. Once these tests were completed, we compared the results obtained between the different decellularization protocols and with samples left native.
resultsThe difference in the means was similar between the tests performed on bones decellularized with the SDS protocol and native bones for pull-out test: +1.4% (CI95% [-10.5%- 12.4%]) of mean differences when comparing Native vs D1, compression -14.9% (CI95% [-42.7%- 12.5%]), 3-point bending -5.7% (CI95% [-22.5%- 11.1%]) and indentation -10.8% (CI95% [-19.5%- 4.6%]). Bones decellularized with the NaOH protocol showed different results from those obtained with the SDS protocol or native bones during the pull-out screw +40.7% (CI95% [24.3%- 57%]) for Native vs D2 protocol and 3-point bending tests +39.2% (CI95% [13.7%- 64.6%]) for Native vs D2 protocol. The other tests, compression and indentation, gave similar results for all our samples.
conclusionVascularized decellularized grafts seem to be an interesting means for bone reconstruction. Our study shows that the decellularization method affects the mechanical results of our specimens. Some methods seem to limit these alterations and could be used in the future for bone decellularization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.