Introduction:

successful treatment in patients with significant bone defects secondary to infection, non-union and osteoporotic fractures resulting from previous trauma is challenging. In the current literature we did not find any reports that compare the use of intramedullary allograft boards versus the same ones placed lateral to the lesion.

Material and methods:

we worked on a sample of 20 rabbits (2 groups of 10 rabbits each). Group 1 underwent surgery using the extramedullary allograft placement technique, while group 2 with the intramedullary technique. Four months after surgery, imaging and histology studies were performed to compare between groups.

Results:

the analysis of the imaging studies showed a statistically significant difference between both groups with greater resorption and bone integration of the intramedullary placed allograft. Regarding histology, there were no statistically significant differences, but there was a significant prediction with a p value < 0.10 in favor of the intramedullary allograft.

Conclusion:

through our work we were able to show the great difference between the allograft placement technique with respect to imaging and histological analysis using revascularization markers. Although the intramedullary placed allograft shows us greater bone integration, the extramedullary graft will provide more support and structure in patients who require it.