| Literature DB >> 25532060 |
Tim Wehner1, Malte Steiner1, Anita Ignatius1, Lutz Claes1.
Abstract
Numerous experimental fracture healing studies are performed on rats, in which different experimental, mechanical parameters are applied, thereby prohibiting direct comparison between each other. Numerical fracture healing simulation models are able to predict courses of fracture healing and offer support for pre-planning animal experiments and for post-hoc comparison between outcomes of different in vivo studies. The aims of this study are to adapt a pre-existing fracture healing simulation algorithm for sheep and humans to the rat, to corroborate it using the data of numerous different rat experiments, and to provide healing predictions for future rat experiments. First, material properties of different tissue types involved were adjusted by comparing experimentally measured callus stiffness to respective simulated values obtained in three finite element (FE) models. This yielded values for Young's moduli of cortical bone, woven bone, cartilage, and connective tissue of 15,750 MPa, 1,000 MPa, 5 MPa, and 1 MPa, respectively. Next, thresholds in the underlying mechanoregulatory tissue differentiation rules were calibrated by modifying model parameters so that predicted fracture callus stiffness matched experimental data from a study that used rigid and flexible fixators. This resulted in strain thresholds at higher magnitudes than in models for sheep and humans. The resulting numerical model was then used to simulate numerous fracture healing scenarios from literature, showing a considerable mismatch in only 6 of 21 cases. Based on this corroborated model, a fit curve function was derived which predicts the increase of callus stiffness dependent on bodyweight, fixation stiffness, and fracture gap size. By mathematically predicting the time course of the healing process prior to the animal studies, the data presented in this work provides support for planning new fracture healing experiments in rats. Furthermore, it allows one to transfer and compare new in vivo findings to previously performed studies with differing mechanical parameters.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25532060 PMCID: PMC4274111 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115695
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Three finite element models for bending stiffness calculation of three different healing scenarios.
Model 1: intact bone cylinder, model 2: fracture callus filled with woven bone and a callus index of 1.5, and model 3: fracture callus with a callus index of 2, where periosteal callus is filled with woven bone up to the fracture line.
Figure 2Mechanoregulatory hypothesis for tissue differentiation dependent on the local volumetric (ε v) and distortional (ε d) strains.
A) Established for sheep, according to Claes and Heigele [9], B) for rat after calibration of the model in the present study.
Literature data of different rat experiments which measured the ex vivo callus stiffness (K) at healing time point t. K is the callus stiffness, obtained by numerical simulation applying the same bodyweight (BW), axial fixation stiffness (K) and fracture gap size (S) as the respective in vivo experiment.
| Data set # | Reference |
| gender (m or f) |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | Harrison | 500 | m | 46 | 0.5 | 63 | 189±47 | 115 |
| 2 | Harrison | 500 | m | 46 | 3 | 63 | n.a. | 114 |
| 3 | Mark | 400 | m | 30 | 2 | 14 | n.a. | 2 (2)** |
| 4 | Mark | 400 | m | 30 | 2 | 28 | 5±1 | 7 (5)** |
| 5 | Mark | 400 | m | 30 | 2 | 42 | 50±18 | 95 (54)** |
| 6 | Mark | 400 | m | 30 | 2 | 84 | 161±9 | 114 (117)** |
| 7 | Kaspar | 435 | m | 34 | 0.5 | 56 | 70–209 | 113 |
| 8 | Strube | 257 | f | 25 | 1.5 | 42 | 176±38 | 100 |
| 9 | Strube | 257 | f | 10 | 1.5 | 42 | 78±26 | 108 |
| 10 | Strube | 335 | f | 25 | 1.5 | 42 | 25±9 | 107 |
| 11 | Strube | 335 | f | 10 | 1.5 | 42 | 38±23 | 54 |
| 12 | Strube | 363 | m | 10 | 1.5 | 42 | 43−83 | 29 |
| 13 | Strube | 353 | f | 10 | 1.5 | 42 | 16−44 | 36 |
| 14 | Claes | 375 | m | 74 | 1 | 35 | 53±10 | 100 |
| 15 | Claes | 375 | m | 10 | 1 | 35 | 35±10 | 11 |
| 16 | Mehta | 366 | m | 25 | 1.5 | 42 | 52±20 | 28 |
| 17 | Mehta | 326 | m | 50 | 1 | 42 | 90−132 | 99 |
| 18 | Mehta | 326 | m | 50 | 5 | 56 | 0−15 | 106 |
| 19 | Mehta | 296 | f | 50 | 1 | 42 | 50−107 | 98 |
|
| ||||||||
| 20 | Recknagel | 425 | m | 119 | 1 | 35 | 31−82 | 100 |
| 21 | Recknagel | 425 | m | 32 | 1 | 35 | 19−32 | 19 |
|
| ||||||||
| – | Wehner | 467 | m | 102 | 1 | 84 | 126 | 100 |
| – | Wehner | 467 | m | 30 | 1 | 84 | 106 | 100 |
*Interquartile range,**simulated with a bodyweight of 450 g.
#1−2: develop a pseudarthrosis model with large fracture gap.
#3–6: examine torsional callus stiffness over healing time.
#7: develops a reproducible standardized rat bone healing model.
#8–11: investigate mechanical impact on fracture healing in aged rats.
#12–13: contribution of mesenchymal stem cells to sex-specific differences in bone healing.
#14–15: investigate the influence of early dynamization on fracture healing.
#16: examine the influence of gender and fixation stability on bone defect healing.
#17–19: develop a reproducible atrophic non-union.
#20–21: investigate how blunt chest trauma impairs fracture healing in rats.
Material properties obtained for the simulated callus tissues.
| Tissue type | Young’s modulus in MPa | Poisson’s ratio |
| Cortical bone | 15,750 | 0.36 |
| Woven bone | 1,000 | 0.36 |
| Cartilage | 5 | 0.45 |
| Granulation/connective tissue | 1 | 0.4 |
Smit et al, 2002 [35], obtained as isotropic elastic constant in a poroelastic material model.
Checa et al., 2011 [22], used for the solid phase of immature rat bone in FE study.
determined via static analysis, cf. S1 Table.
Leong & Morgan 2008 [36], obtained by nanoindentation on rat fracture callus.
Simon et al., 2011 [18], used in linear elastic FE model approach.
Figure 3Course of callus stiffness (KC) over the healing time (tH) under rigid (top) and flexible (bottom) fixation.
Bars indicate in vivo data (statistical means and 95% confidence intervals) from the rat experiment [29], that was used to calibrate the numerical model, solid line represents the outcome of the numerical simulation after calibration.
Figure 4Concentration (tissue type fraction within each finite element) of bone (top) and cartilage (bottom) over the healing time for the rigidly (left) and the flexibly (right) fixated animals.
Figure 5Comparison of simulated (K) and ex vivo measured (K) callus stiffness of experimental studies from literature.
The points and error bars indicate mean and standard deviations or median and interquartile ranges. Numbers of the single in vivo data points refer to Table 1. The solid line represents perfect agreement and the dashed lines indicate uncertainty ranges of the simulations due to variations in gap size, free bending length of the pins, and bodyweight of the rats (±14% of the intact bone stiffness, determined in a preceded sensitivity analysis as described in the discussion section). In some cases, numerical predictions clearly underestimated the callus stiffness after bony bridging (group A) and in some cases, successful healing with high callus stiffness was predicted although no healing was observed in vivo and low callus stiffness was measured ex vivo (group B).
Figure 6Time to heal (t, defined as time point, when callus stiffness reached 90% of intact bone stiffness) in relation to bodyweight of the rats and axial stiffness (K) of the external fixator at a fracture gap size of 1 mm (left) and 2 mm (right), calculated using the parameters given in supplemental material (cf.
S2 Table).