| Literature DB >> 30180907 |
Benedikt Peterburs1, Anke Mittelstaedt2, Philipp Haas2, Maximilian Petri2, Ralf Westphal3, Christian Dullin4,5, Stephan Sehmisch6, Claudia Neunaber2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reduction of femoral shaft fractures remains a challenging problem in orthopaedic surgery. Robot-assisted reduction might ease reduction and fracture treatment. However, the influence of different reduction pathways on patients' physiology is not fully known yet. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the biomechanics and histology of fracture healing after direct and prolonged robot-assisted reduction in an in vivo rat model.Entities:
Keywords: Biomechanics; Bone turnover marker; Computer-assisted surgery; Femoral fracture; Fracture healing; Histology; Rat; Surgical robot
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30180907 PMCID: PMC6122772 DOI: 10.1186/s40001-018-0337-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Med Res ISSN: 0949-2321 Impact factor: 2.175
Group distribution
| Healing time (operation until euthanasia), days | Group | Number of animals |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | Control group (no reduction) | 12 |
| 1× reduction | 12 | |
| 10× reduction | 12 | |
| 14 | Control group (no reduction) | 12 |
| 1× reduction | 12 | |
| 10× reduction | 12 | |
| 21 | Control group (no reduction) | 12 |
| 1× reduction | 12 | |
| 10× reduction | 12 | |
| 28 | Control group (no reduction) | 12 |
| 1× reduction | 12 | |
| 10× reduction | 12 |
Fig. 1Lateral view onto the left hind limb of the rat with osteotomy and external fixateur placed in the femur
Histological score
| State of the callus formation | Points |
|---|---|
| Fracture gap not closed or closed with fibrous tissue | 0 |
| Fracture gap closed with cartilage | 1 |
| 25% of the fracture gap closed with bone | 2 |
| 50% of the fracture gap closed with bone | 3 |
| 75% of the fracture gap closed with bone | 4 |
| 100% of the fracture gap closed with bone | 5 |
Fig. 2Cortical bone volume (a) and maximum force (b).*p ≤ 0.05 compared to week one of the same reduction maneuver; #p ≤ 0.05 compared to week two of the same reduction maneuver; $p ≤ 0.05 compared to week three of the same reduction maneuver; %p ≤ 0.05 compared to indicated group
Fig. 3a Bone formation marker PINP. b Histological score. *p ≤ 0.05 compared to week one of the same reduction maneuver; #p ≤ 0.05 compared to week two of the same reduction maneuver; $p ≤ 0.05 compared to week three of the same reduction maneuver; %p ≤ 0.05 compared to indicated group. §p ≤ 0.05 compared to the respective 0 h group