| Literature DB >> 25956925 |
Martin Lutz1, Roland Steck2, Ingrid Sitte3, Michael Rieger4, Michael Schuetz5, Thomas Klestil6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The invention of the locking plate technology leads to alterations of treatment strategies at metaphyseal fracture sites with the concept of spontaneous remodeling of trabecular bone voids. Whereas trabecular regeneration has been proven in experimental animal studies, no histologic data exist on human fracture healing with special emphasis on bone voids.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25956925 PMCID: PMC4429963 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-015-0205-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Figure 1Unstable distal radius fracture; X-ray lateral view.
Figure 2Lateral view demonstrating healing of the fracture with appropriate alignment after fracture fixation.
Figure 3Lateral and axial CT scan after closed reduction and initial plaster fixation of the fracture: the diagram shows the orientation of the trephine insertion through the initial compression void at implant removal.
Figure 4Lateral and axial CT scan after closed reduction and initial plaster fixation of the fracture: the diagram shows the orientation of the trephine insertion through the initial compression void at implant removal.
Figure 5Histological section at implant removal with ROI V and ROI C depicting the volar and compression zone area, respectively.
Mean and standard deviation of ultrastructural parameters in volar and dorsal ROIs of the distal radius at implant removal; sample size of the specimen and initial metaphyseal defect size
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BV/TV | 16.83 (3.23) | 13.12 (5.76) | 0.013 | ||
| TbN | 1.63 (0.28) | 1.34 (0.45) | 0.036 | ||
| TbTh | 104.69 (18.59) | 95.35 (18.66) | 0.099 | ||
| TbSp | 526.63 (97.73) | 763.43 (404.57) | 0.036 | ||
| OV/TV | 2.09 (1.10) | 1.92 (1.08) | 0.460 | ||
| Sample length | 13.14 (2.69) | ||||
| Defect size | 0.61 (0.42) |
Ratio of individual ultrastructural parameters between compression zone (C) and volar ROIs (V) at implant removal; sample size of the specimen and metaphyseal defect size
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B G l | 1.22 | 1.34 | 0.91 | 1.4 | 1.57 | 47 | 15.75 | 0.337 |
| B G r | 0.97 | 0.95 | 1.02 | 0.94 | 1.59 | 47 | 18.84 | 1.267 |
| B E | 0.37 | 0.64 | 0.58 | 0.56 | 0.58 | 71 | 12.23 | 0.178 |
| B R | 1.13 | 0.94 | 1.19 | 0.97 | 0.44 | 63 | 8.63 | 0.316 |
| E M | 0.41 | 0.5 | 0.84 | 0.43 | 0.98 | 65 | 9.02 | 0.299 |
| H G | 0.69 | 0.67 | 1.03 | 0.65 | 0.69 | 52 | 11.55 | 0.167 |
| K S | 0.37 | 0.27 | 1.38 | 0.24 | 0.92 | 64 | 12.47 | 1.415 |
| K M | 1.19 | 1.07 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.69 | 67 | 15.84 | 1.208 |
| K M | 0.45 | 0.63 | 0.71 | 0.57 | 1.36 | 68 | 11.81 | 0.187 |
| M H | 1.11 | 1.26 | 0.88 | 1.31 | 1.11 | 58 | 12.03 | 0.511 |
| L J | 0.92 | 0.91 | 1.01 | 0.89 | 0.86 | 23 | 11.95 | 0.264 |
| N H | 0.89 | 1.02 | 0.87 | 0.99 | 1.29 | 62 | 15.97 | 0.696 |
| P S | 0.73 | 0.98 | 0.74 | 0.94 | 1.17 | 21 | 14.04 | 0.38 |
| O W | 0.33 | 0.48 | 0.69 | 0.43 | 1.48 | 61 | 13.93 | 0.65 |
| P E | 0.94 | 0.86 | 1.09 | 0.84 | 0.48 | 62 | 15.03 | 0.971 |
| R C | 0.75 | 0.91 | 0.82 | 0.87 | 0.76 | 75 | 11.21 | 0.92 |