Injectable biphasic calcium phosphate bone cements (BCPCs) composed of β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) and hydroxyapatite (HA) have been intensively investigated because of their high rate of biodegradation, bioactivity and osteoconductivity, which can be adjusted by changing the ratio between β-TCP and HA phases after setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of 1 wt% chitosan fiber additive with biphasic calcium phosphate as an injectable bone cement both in vitro and in vivo. In vitro evaluation of compressive strength, degradation rate, morphology, and cell and alkaline phosphatase activities was done by comparison with bone cement without β-TCP. The in vivo results for micro-CT scanning and histological examinations for three groups (control, BCPC and commercial biphasic calcium phosphate granules) were characterized and compared. After the addition of 20 wt% β-TCP to calcium phosphate cement, the initial and final setting times of the sample were 3.92 min and 11.46 min, respectively, which were not significantly different from cement without β-TCP. The degradation time of the BCPC material was longer than that of calcium phosphate cement alone. The healing process was significantly faster for BCPC than for the control and commercial product groups. Therefore, this is the first evidence that BCPC is an attractive option for bone surgery due to its faster stimulation of healing and faster degradation rate.

IntroductionGlucosamine hydrochloride and chondroitin sulfate are commonly used in dogs with OA, but evidence around efficacy is mixed. This study evaluated the effectiveness of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate, marine based fatty acid compounds (PCSO-524 and EAB-277), and carprofen for the alleviation of canine hip OA pain. This was a prospective, block-randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial.MethodsSeventy-five owned pet dogs with hip OA were assigned randomly into five treatment groups: PCSO-524, Glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate, EAB-277, carprofen, and Placebo (sunflower oil). Peak vertical force (PVF) and subjective orthopedic assessment scores (OAS) were evaluated before treatment (week 0), and at weeks 2, 4, and 6 during treatment.ResultsAt week 2, the carprofen group showed a significant increase in PVF (3.14 ± 5.33; mean ± SD). After 4 weeks, the increases in PVF of the PCSO-524 (3.90 ± 3.52), EAB-277 (4.17 ± 4.94), and carprofen (3.08 ± 5.87) groups were significant, and significantly greater than placebo (0.08 ± 1.90) and glucosamine (−0.05 ± 6.34) groups. After 6 weeks, the change of PVF in the PCSO-524 (4.14 ± 4.65), EAB-277 (4.45 ± 4.23), and carprofen (4.21 ± 6.52) groups were significant and significantly higher than the placebo group (−0.33 ± 3.65). The change in PVF in the glucosamine group (1.08 ± 5.49) lay between the placebo group and the other treatment groups. The OAS did not show any significant change in any group.DiscussionPCSO-524 and EAB-277, but not glucosamine/chondroitin, resulted in significant improvements in PVF from baseline after 4 weeks, and 6 weeks, and to a similar degree to that seen with carprofen.

Dynamic contrast CT with Patlak plot analysis can be used to determine the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). However, several studies have shown different GFR values and they are most likely less than the values by the standard techniques. The purpose of this prospective, experimental, and method comparison study was to evaluate the GFR using a CT technique (CT-GFR) in 12 healthy dogs compared to serum iohexol clearance (SIC-GFR). All dogs were anesthetized and placed in the right lateral recumbency position and the caudal part was lifted inside the CT gantry. A single-slice dynamic CT of the aorta and both kidneys was scanned sequentially every 2 s for 2 min after a bolus injection (3 mL/s) of iohexol (300 mg/kg). Time attenuation curves (TAC) were constructed and the GFR per volume of kidney was calculated using the Patlak plot analysis method based on 30-120 s time intervals, and results were compared to global GFR from SIC that was determined with eight blood samples for up to 240 min. The CT-GFR value (1.85 ± 0.48 mL/min/kg) was significantly less than the SIC-GFR value (3.40 ± 0.80 mL/min/kg; P < .05). The CT-GFR was correlated with SIC-GFR by the coefficient of correlation (r) at 0.61 (P = .046). In conclusion, the CT-GFR underestimated SIC-GFR and should be used carefully. We suggest that the GFR should be calculated using the equation derived from linear regression between CT-GFR and the standard GFR method. With its own particular parameters, each institute should have its own prediction equation.

No abstract