| Literature DB >> 25208584 |
Mehmet Akif Akcal, Oguz Poyanli, Koray Unay, Irfan Esenkaya, Bahadir Gokcen, Ayşe Sanem Fıratlıgil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comminuted fractures can occur due to severe traumas. The treatment of these fractures that may cause serious morbidity and sometimes mortality is N-butyl cyanoacrylate. It has been reported that this adhesive provides sufficient rigid fixation for bone healing. This study aims to examine cyanoacrylate radiologically and histologically to determine whether it provides adequate recovery in segmental fractures. The secondary objective is to evaluate N-butyl cyanoacrylate, an adhesive material that can hold the fragments on the fracture line together following reduction.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25208584 PMCID: PMC4189668 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-014-0076-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Figure 1Rat tibia. (A) Preparation of the rat tibia for intervention. (B) Rat tibia with the segmental fracture formed and K-wire delivered is illustrated.
Figure 2Lateral X-rays of the control and the cyanoacrylate group on (A, B) day 1 and (C, D) week 6.
The histological scoring system of Huo et al. [1 ]
|
|
|
|---|---|
| 1 | Fibrous tissue |
| 2 | Predominant fibrous tissue with minimal cartilage tissue |
| 3 | Cartilage tissue and fibrous tissue in a uniform manner |
| 4 | Predominant cartilage tissue with minimal fibrous tissue |
| 5 | Cartilage tissue |
| 6 | Predominant cartilage tissue with minimal immature bone |
| 7 | Immature bone and cartilage tissue in a uniform manner |
| 8 | Predominant immature bone with minimal cartilage tissue |
| 9 | Bone healing with immature bone |
| 10 | Bone healing with matured bone |
The average radiological scores were defined after surgical procedures were completed
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Day 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Week 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Week 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Week 6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
IR independent researcher. The scoring was made on a scale of 4. Score 0, no healing; score 1, callus formation; score 2, onset of osseous union; score 3, start of the disappearance of fracture line; score 4, complete osseous union.
Statistical explanation of radiological scoring
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Day 1 | No recovery (0) | 8 | 100.00 | 8 | 100.00 | |
| Week 1 | No recovery (0) | 8 | 100.00 | 8 | 100.00 | |
| Week 3 | Callus formation (1) | 3 | 37.50 | 3 | 37.50 |
|
| Onset of osseous union (2) | 5 | 62.50 | 5 | 62.50 | ||
| Week 6 | Callus formation (1) | 1 | 12.50 | 0 | 0.00 |
|
| Onset of osseous union (2) | 2 | 25.00 | 3 | 37.50 | ||
| Disappearance of the fracture line (3) | 5 | 62.50 | 5 | 62.50 | ||
Manual scoring of groups on week 6
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 6 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 8 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
The scoring was made on a scale of 2. Score 0, non-union (movement present on both planes); score 1, secondary fusion (movement present on one plane); score 2, complete fusion (no movements).
Figure 3Manual assessment of groups on week 6.
Figure 4Pathology scoring average. (A) The pathology scoring average of the control group was 9, and the black arrow indicated the immature bone. (B) The pathology scoring average of the cyanoacrylate group was 8, and the red arrow indicated the cartilage tissue.
The scoring points obtained are shown in accordance with the scoring system recommended by Huo et al. [13]
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9 | 8 |
| 2 | 8 | 8 |
| 3 | 9 | 8 |
| 4 | 8 | 8 |
| 5 | 8 | 8 |
| 6 | 9 | 8 |
| 7 | 9 | 8 |
| 8 | 9 | 8 |
Assessment of pathological scores
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pathological scoring | 9 (8–9) | 8 (8–8) | 16 | 0.046 |
MWU Mann–Whitney U test.