Table 2.

Comparison of different materials used in reconstruction of the iliac crest defects

Authors, Year	No. of cases; Material used to cover the iliac crest defect	Defect length	Graft incorporation	Pain after surgery	Patients’ satisfaction	Allergic reaction
Asano et al. (1994) [10]	60	15–70 mm	98.3 %	93 % no pain	95 % excellent	0
	Bioactive ceramic (apatite wollastonite-containing glass ceramic)
Ito et al. (2005) [11]	31	15–70 mm	84 %	84 % no pain	78 % excellent	0
	Bioactive ceramic (apatite wollastonite-containing glass ceramic)
Acharya et al. (2010) [9]	26	n/a	80.7 %	96 % no pain	n/a	0
	Bioactive ceramic (Chitra hydroxyapatite-bioactive glass ceramic)
Bojescul et al. (2005) [19]	10	n/a	100 %	Significantly lower	n/a	0
	ProOsteonTM-Coralline hydroxy-apatite
Harris et al. (1994) [22]	28	n/a	100 %	100 % “acceptable levels”	n/a	0
	Autologous rib
Defino and Rodriguez-Fuentes (1999) [12]	15	n/a	86.7 %	93 % no pain	100 % satisfied	0
	Autologous rib
Bapat et al. (2008) [20]	20	>25 mm	95 %	Significantly lower	n/a	0
	Autologous rib
Dave et al. (2007) [21]	26	3.5–5 mm	100 %	100 % no pain	n/a	0
	Autologous rib
Halsnad et al. (2004) [7]	4	n/a	n/a	100 % less pain	100 % satisfied	0
	Metal plate
Huemer et al. (2004) [8]	2	n/a	n/a	100 % less pain	100 % satisfied	0
	Metal plate
Gil-Albarova and Gil-Albarova (2011) [16]	9	n/a	100 %	100 % no pain	8.2 (median, scale 0–10)	0
	Autologous graft
Present study (2011)	16	40–70 mm	94 %	Median VAS of 3 (0–9)	87.5 % “very satisfied”	0
	Tutobone, Xenograft

n/a not applicable or not available, VAS visual analogue scale