Page 194 - Demo

Chapter 7192The post-mortem CT scans revealed four different conditions (Table 3). In four of the ewes, there was no reconstruction between the implant and the LPM, with complete absence or a large distance between the LPM and the implant. In one case, the post-operative specimen was poorly dissected and there was destruction of the enthesis reconstruction as a result of this. In two of the sheep, the ostectomized bony enthesis was sutured to the scaffold in the condylar neck during the implantation surgery. In the other two cases, the fibrocartilaginous tissue was re-attached. Three sheep had purely soft tissue connections between the ostectomized bony insertion of the LPM and the lattice structure of the implant. Two of these three sheep had a per-operative bony reattachment, and in one sheep the fibrocartilaginous tissue was re-attached to the subcondylar scaffold (Fig. 6).Three sheep had a combination of partial bony and partial soft tissue enthesis attachment to the scaffold (Fig. 7). The average thickness of the soft tissue attachment was significantly less compared with that of the sheep who only had a soft tissue connection (i.e., 0.3 to 0.5 mm (average 0.4 mm) and 0.5 to 0.9 mm (average 0.7mm), respectively) (Table 4). In one of these three sheep, the type of tissue that was preserved on the LPM stump during per-operative fixation was unclear; the bony enthesis was preserved in the other two sheep. Fig. 6: Soft tissue connection between lateral pterygoid muscle (LPM) and the implant scaffold with measurement. (a) Sheep no. 0032; (b) Sheep no. 1724; (c) sheep no. 3520. Red arro soft tissue connection between the LPM enthesis and scaffold. (a) 0.9 mm; (b) 0.5 mm; (c) 0.7 mm. Black arro partial calcification of the LPM.Nikolas de Meurechy NW.indd 192 05-06-2024 10:14