| Literature DB >> 19995322 |
Ramune Aleksyniene1, Jesper Skovhus Thomsen, Henrik Eckardt, Kristian G Bundgaard, Martin Lind, Ivan Hvid.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19995322 PMCID: PMC2823317 DOI: 10.3109/17453670903350032
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Orthop ISSN: 1745-3674 Impact factor: 3.717
Figure 1.Radiograph taken during the consolidation period on day 28 (PTH group) showing both periosteal and endosteal regenerate callus.
Figure 2.Longitudinal sections of the bone specimens made after the mechanical testing procedure: A. PTH; B. control. Bar = 10 mm.
Table 1. Animal body weight characteristics
| Mean (SD) [range] | p-value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body weight (g) | PTH (n = 19) | Vehicle + PTH (n = 17) | Control (n = 15) | ANOVA | PTH vs. Control | Vehicle+PTH vs. Control | PTH vs. Vehicle+PTH |
| Initial | 3.94 (28) [3,500–4,450] | 3,900 (304) [3,400–4,500] | 4,063 (275) [3,500–4,600] | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.7 |
| Final | 3.55 (26) [3,150–3,950] | 3,485 (295) [2,900–3,950] | 3,787 (308) [3,200–4,300] | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.005 | 0.5 |
Figure 3.Box-and-whisker plots showing the results of the three-point bending test of the distracted tibia.
Table 2. Total regenerate callus volume and external callus dimension properties of the regenerated callus
| Mean (SD) | p-value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PTH (n = 19) | Vehicle + PTH (n = 17) | Control (n = 15) | PTH vs. Control | Vehicle+PTH vs. Control | PTH vs. vehicle+PTH | ||
| Volume (mm3) | |||||||
| Mid-diaphyseal | |||||||
| sample (40 mm) | 4,030 (220) | 4,129 (296) | 2,536 (73) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.8 |
| sample left (40 mm) | 1,621 (27) | 1,653 (37) | 1,673 (31) | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
| Regenerated callus | 2,408 (211) | 2,557 (299) | 862 (56) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.9 |
| Callus dimensions (mm) | |||||||
| Anterior-posterior (AP) | 13.2 (0.5) | 12.7 (0.6) | 10.4 (0.3) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.4 |
| Medial-lateral (ML) | 13.4 (0.3) | 13.3 (0.3) | 11.1 (0.2) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.9 |
Table 3. Bone mineral content (BMC) and bone mineral density (BMD) of the regenerated callus, and BMD of the contralateral intact tibia
| Mean (SD) | p-value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PTH (n = 19) | Vehicle + PTH (n = 17) | Control (n = 15) | PTH vs. Control | Vehicle+PTH vs. Control | PTH vs. Vehicle+PTH | ||
| Total ROI | |||||||
| BMC (g) | 0.91 (0.12) | 0.9 (0.21) | 0.59 (0.84) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.7 |
| BMD (mg/cm2) | 400 (40) | 390 (70) | 311 (40) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.6 |
| De novo ROI | |||||||
| BMC (g) | 0.33 (0.05) | 0.33 (0.09) | 0.21 (0.04) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.7 |
| BMD (mg/cm2) | 370 (40) | 360 (80) | 270 (40) | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.6 |
| Contralateral central ROI | |||||||
| BMD (mg/cm2) | 314 (20) | 300 (20) | 290 (20) | 0.01 | 0.004 | 0.3 | 0.05 |
Table 4. Results of the three-point bending test for the distracted tibia and the contralateral intact tibia. The analysis was performed using data adjusted to the final body weight of the animal (see the text for detail). Selected data are shown in Figure 3
| Mean (SD) | p-value, (95% CI for differences) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PTH (n = 19) | Vehicle + PTH (n = 17) | Control (n = 15) | ANOVA | PTH vs. Control | Vehicle + PTH vs. Control | PTH vs. Vehicle + PTH | |
| Distracted tibia | |||||||
| Fmax (N) | 344 (29) | 338 (40) | 260 (27) | < 0.001 | 0.001 (-228 to -60) | 0.001 (66 to 242) | 0.9 (-67 to 88) |
| Wabs (mJ) | 454 (112) | 374 (112) | 227 (101) | 0.02 | 0.01 (-489 to -100) | 0.02 (31 to 437) | 0.5 (-240 – 119) |
| Stiffness (N/mm) | 283 (71) | 269 (80) | 250 (34) | 0.2 | 0.3 (-141 to 19) | 0.2 (-31 to 133) | 0.8 (-83 to 63) |
| Intact contralateral tibia | |||||||
| Fmax (N) | 491 (14) | 453 (14) | 449 (14) | 0.005 | 0.004 (-100 to -20) | 0.07 (-15 to 69) | 0.2 (-70 to 3) |