T Histing1, K Heerschop2, M Klein2, C Scheuer3, D Stenger2, J H Holstein2, T Pohlemann2, M D Menger3. 1. Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, Saarland University, 66421, Homburg/Saar, Germany. tina.histing@uks.eu. 2. Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, Saarland University, 66421, Homburg/Saar, Germany. 3. Institute for Clinical and Experimental Surgery, Saarland University, 66421, Homburg/Saar, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although a variety of suitable fracture models for mice exist, in many studies bone healing was still analyzed without fracture stabilization. Because there is little information whether the healing of non-stabilized fractures differs from that of stabilized fractures, we herein studied the healing process of non-stabilized compared to stabilized femur fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one CD-1 mice were stabilized after midshaft fracture of the femur with an intramedullary screw allowing micromovements and endochondral healing. In another 22 mice the femur fractures were left unstabilized. Bone healing was studied by radiological, biomechanical, histomorphometric and protein expression analyses. RESULTS: Non-stabilized femur fractures revealed a significantly lower biomechanical stiffness compared to stabilized fractures. During the early phase of fracture healing non-stabilized fractures demonstrated a significantly lower amount of osseous tissue and a higher amount of cartilage tissue. During the late phase of fracture healing both non-stabilized and stabilized fractures showed almost 100 % osseous callus tissue. However, in stabilized fractures remodeling was almost completed with lamellar bone while non-stabilized fractures still showed large callus with great amounts of woven bone, indicating a delay in bone remodeling. Of interest, western blot analyses of callus tissue demonstrated in non-stabilized fractures a significantly reduced expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and a slightly lowered expression of bone morphogenetic protein-2 and collagen-10. CONCLUSION: Non-stabilized femur fractures in mice show a marked delay in bone healing compared to stabilized fractures. Therefore, non-stabilized fracture models may not be used to analyze the mechanisms of normal bone healing.
BACKGROUND: Although a variety of suitable fracture models for mice exist, in many studies bone healing was still analyzed without fracture stabilization. Because there is little information whether the healing of non-stabilized fractures differs from that of stabilized fractures, we herein studied the healing process of non-stabilized compared to stabilized femur fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one CD-1 mice were stabilized after midshaft fracture of the femur with an intramedullary screw allowing micromovements and endochondral healing. In another 22 mice the femur fractures were left unstabilized. Bone healing was studied by radiological, biomechanical, histomorphometric and protein expression analyses. RESULTS: Non-stabilized femur fractures revealed a significantly lower biomechanical stiffness compared to stabilized fractures. During the early phase of fracture healing non-stabilized fractures demonstrated a significantly lower amount of osseous tissue and a higher amount of cartilage tissue. During the late phase of fracture healing both non-stabilized and stabilized fractures showed almost 100 % osseous callus tissue. However, in stabilized fractures remodeling was almost completed with lamellar bone while non-stabilized fractures still showed large callus with great amounts of woven bone, indicating a delay in bone remodeling. Of interest, western blot analyses of callus tissue demonstrated in non-stabilized fractures a significantly reduced expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and a slightly lowered expression of bone morphogenetic protein-2 and collagen-10. CONCLUSION: Non-stabilized femur fractures in mice show a marked delay in bone healing compared to stabilized fractures. Therefore, non-stabilized fracture models may not be used to analyze the mechanisms of normal bone healing.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone remodeling; Fracture; Mice; Non-stabilization; Stabilization
Authors: Tina Histing; Michael D Menger; Tim Pohlemann; Romano Matthys; Tobias Fritz; Patric Garcia; Moritz Klein Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2016-11-13 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: A Polikarpova; A Ellinghaus; O Schmidt-Bleek; L Grosser; C H Bucher; G N Duda; E M Tanaka; K Schmidt-Bleek Journal: NPJ Regen Med Date: 2022-06-30
Authors: Allison W Hsia; Armaun J Emami; Franklin D Tarke; Hailey C Cunningham; Priscilla M Tjandra; Alice Wong; Blaine A Christiansen; Nicole M Collette Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Tina Histing; Philipp Bremer; Mika F Rollmann; Steven Herath; Moritz Klein; Tim Pohlemann; Michael D Menger; Tobias Fritz Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Maximilian M Menger; Philipp Bremer; Claudia Scheuer; Mika F Rollmann; Benedikt J Braun; Steven C Herath; Marcel Orth; Thomas Später; Tim Pohlemann; Michael D Menger; Tina Histing Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 4.379