Objective To investigate the cl inical appl ication effect of the new bone harvester. Methods Between August 2006 and October 2009, 112 patients underwent autogenous il iac bone graft and were followed up. There were 71 males and 41 females with a median age of 42 years (range, 11-71 years), including 45 cases of comminuted fracture of the l imbs, 47
cases of bone nonunion, and 20 cases of benign bone tumor. According to different methods of bone harvesting, the patients were divided into 5 groups: group A (n=32, with new bone harvester), group B (n=29, with tricortical bone harvester), group C (n=15, with internal lamina harvester), group D (n=23, with external lamina harvester), and group E (n=13, with bicortical il iac bone by saw). There was no significant difference in general data of 5 groups (P  gt; 0.05). The incision length, operation time, and peri-operative bleeding volume were compared. At 4 days, 7 days, 60 days, and 1 year postoperatively, the pain degree was assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS), and the incidence rates of peri pheral nerve injury, fracture, haematoma, ventral hernia, il iac crest sag, and chronic pain were observed. Results The incision length and the operation time in group A was shorter than those in other groups, the peri-operative bleeding volume in group A was less than in other groups, the VAS in group A was the lowest among 5 groups, showing significant differences (P  lt; 0.05). The occurrence rates of chronic pain and il iac crest sag in group A were lower than those in group B, showing significant differences at 1 year after operation (P  lt; 0.01). There was no significant difference in the incidence rates of peripheral nerve injury, fracture, haematoma, ventral hernia, il iac crest sag, and chronic pain between group A and groups C, D, E (P  gt; 0.05), and in the incidence rates of peri pheral nerve injury, fracture, haematoma, and ventral hernia between group A and group B (P  gt; 0.05). The total compl ication in group A was the lowest among 5 groups, showing significant difference (P  lt; 0.05). Conclusion The new bone harvester is minimally invasive bone harvester,
which has the advantages of short operation time and incision length, less bleeding volume, low VAS and complications.

Citation： FAN Weijie,XIE Xuesong.. CLINICAL APPLICATION OF NEW BONE HARVESTER. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2011, 25(4): 462-465. doi: Copy