Masquelet technique for infected femur bone defect in low resource setting: a case report

Mario D. Simatupang; Stevanus I. Ario

doi:10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20243911

Authors

Mario D. Simatupang Department Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Merauke Public Hospital, South Papua, Indonesia
Stevanus I. Ario School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20243911

Keywords:

Chronic osteomyelitis, Masquelet technique, Induced membrane, Bone defect

Abstract

Our hospital is located on the east edge of Indonesia, in the rural city of Merauke, South Papua. In this setting, procedures to bridge large bone defects are limited. The Masquelet technique is a two-stage orthopaedic procedure to treat large bone defects. This technique has a promising future for treating large bone defects, especially in low-resource settings. A 27 years old male experienced a traffic accident. The patient went unconscious and was brought to a nearby hospital where he underwent open reduction and internal fixation of his right femur open fracture. In the 4^th week after the trauma, he was diagnosed with osteomyelitis. After multiple procedures in other hospitals, in the 74^th week, he arrived at our hospital in Merauke, South Papua. We used Masquelet technique to bridge the bone gap and treat the osteomyelitis. In the first stage, we did debridement and sequesterectomy, then filled the bone defect with antibiotic impregnated PMMA spacer. After 5 weeks, the infection had subsided and the second stage of Masquelet technique was done. We removed the spacer while preserving the membrane and filled the gap with iliac bone autograft and allograft mixture. Union was attained 56 weeks after stage 2. The patient and family are satisfied with the outcome. Masquelet technique is a promising technique with a good success rate for large bone defects, especially in infected bone cases. No need for microvascular and other specialized tools made Masquelet technique can be done in a low-resource setting.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Careri S, Vitiello R, Oliva MS, Ziranu A, Maccauro G, Perisano C. Masquelet technique and osteomyelitis: innovations and literature review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019;23(2):210-6.

Alford AI, Nicolaou D, Hake M, McBride-Gagyi S. Masquelet’s induced membrane technique: Review of current concepts and future directions. J Orthop Res Off Publ Orthop Res Soc. 2021;39(4):707-18.

Masquelet AC, Fitoussi F, Begue T, Muller GP. Reconstruction of the long bones by the induced membrane and spongy autograft. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2000;45(3):346-53.

Scholz AO, Gehrmann S, Glombitza M, Kaufmann RA, Bostelmann R, Flohe S, et al. Reconstruction of septic diaphyseal bone defects with the induced membrane technique. Injury. 2015;46(4):S121-4.

Micev AJ, Kalainov DM, Soneru AP. Masquelet technique for treatment of segmental bone loss in the upper extremity. J Hand Surg. 2015;40(3):593-8.

Masquelet A, Kanakaris NK, Obert L, Stafford P, Giannoudis PV. Bone Repair Using the Masquelet Technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(11):1024-36.

Jw C, J K, Wt C, Jk K, Jh S, Hj K, et al. Circumferential bone grafting around an absorbable gelatin sponge core reduced the amount of grafted bone in the induced membrane technique for critical-size defects of long bones. Injury. 2017;48(10):2292-305.

Taqi M, Llewellyn CM, Estefan M. Fibula Tissue Transfer. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. 2024.

Orthopaedics MER. Masquelet–Ilizarov technique for the management of bone loss post debridement of infected tibial nonunion. Int Orthop. 2022. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/108353060/Masquelet_Ilizarov_technique_for_the_management_of_bone_loss_post_debridement_of_infected_tibial_nonunion. Accessed on 9 September 2024.

Samara E, Moriarty TF, Decosterd LA, Richards RG, Gautier E, Wahl P. Antibiotic stability over six weeks in aqueous solution at body temperature with and without heat treatment that mimics the curing of bone cement. Bone Jt Res. 2017;6(5):296-306.

Rathbone CR, Cross JD, Brown KV, Murray CK, Wenke JC. Effect of various concentrations of antibiotics on osteogenic cell viability and activity. J Orthop Res Off Publ Orthop Res Soc. 2011;29(7):1070-4.

Giannoudis PV, Harwood PJ, Tosounidis T, Kanakaris NK. Restoration of long bone defects treated with the induced membrane technique: protocol and outcomes. Injury. 2016;47(6):S53-61.

Morelli I, Drago L, George DA, Gallazzi E, Scarponi S, Romanò CL. Masquelet technique: myth or reality? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Injury. 2016;47(6):S68-76.

Gindraux F, Loisel F, Bourgeois M, Oudina K, Melin M, de Billy B, et al. Induced membrane maintains its osteogenic properties even when the second stage of Masquelet’s technique is performed later. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Off Publ Eur Trauma Soc. 2020;46(2):301-12.

Haubruck P, Heller R, Apitz P, Kammerer A, Alamouti A, Daniel V, et al. Evaluation of matrix metalloproteases as early biomarkers for bone regeneration during the applied Masquelet therapy for non-unions. Injury. 2018;49(10):1732-8.

Taylor BC, French BG, Fowler TT, Russell J, Poka A. Induced membrane technique for reconstruction to manage bone loss. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012;20(3):142-50.

Marchand LS, Rothberg DL, Kubiak EN, Higgins TF. Is This Autograft Worth It? The Blood Loss and Transfusion Rates Associated With Reamer Irrigator Aspirator Bone Graft Harvest. J Orthop Trauma. 2017;31(4):205-9.

Ahmed H, Shakshak M, Trompeter A. A review of the Masquelet technique in the treatment of lower limb critical-size bone defects. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2023;NA.