This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MCMASTER, P. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by MCMASTER, P. E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1937;19:74-83.
© 1937 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc


BONE ATROPHY AND ABSORPTION

Experimental Observations

PAUL E. MCMASTER M.D.1

1 The Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery of the University of Chicago

1. The experimental evidence presented shows that in the presence of non-union of short fibular defects an associated conical bone atrophy, which in some cases was extreme, occurred in the fragment ends. The bone was removed both by lacunar absorption, produced by giant-cell osteoclasts, and by smooth absorption, produced by mononuclear cells. The atrophy is explained on the basis of disuse, caused by an interrupted bony continuity, which resulted in a lack of functional stimulus.

2. When atrophy and absorption of bone ends occurred it was bilateral in practically the same degree and rate despite the fact that on one side there was a circulatory change, produced either by lumbar sympathectomy or by vein ligation. Hence circulatory changes (arterial hyperaemia or venous congestion) per se had no essential effect on bone atrophy or on absorption.

3. Non-union occurred in seventeen of forty-four subperiosteal fibular defects (one and five-tenths millimeters), despite the presence in each case of an intact periosteal tube which bridged the defect. This failure of union is explained by non-apposition and excessive motion of the fragment ends, for in twenty-eight linear subperiosteal osteotomies in fibulae where the fragment ends were opposed only one case of non-union occurred.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?