A comparative study of calcium sulfate artificial bone graft versus allograft in the reconstruction of bone defect after tumor curettage

BackgroundCavity reconstruction after benign bone tumor removal is varied and controversial. Allograft is widely used but is associated with complications. New bone substitutes, such as calcium sulfate artificial bone, have been introduced for bone tumor operation. However, the bone healing response of artificial bone has not been compared with allograft bone. We therefore compared calcium sulfate grafts (study group) with bone allografts (control group) for the treatment of benign bone tumors.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 50 patients who underwent calcium sulfate reconstruction and 50 patients who underwent allograft cancellous bone reconstruction. The two groups were well matched. The mean follow-up time of the study group was 19.9 (12–55) months. We investigated bone healing response, complications, and factors affecting bone healing.ResultsAt the last follow-up, 84% (42/50) of cases in the study group and 62% (31/50) of cases in the control group had achieved clinical healing (P=0.013). The initial healing rate showed no significant difference between the two groups (100% vs. 96%,P=0.153). The mean healing times for calcium sulfate and allograft bone were 9.6 (3–42) months and 13.8 (3–36) months, respectively (P<0.01). Complications in the study group were minor and resolved. Implant volume was a significant factor affecting bone healing.ConclusionThe calcium sulfate bone substitute showed a satisfactory healing outcome and safety profile in reconstruction of bone defects after benign bone tumor curettage, especially in smaller cavities.