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 E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wu, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Kelly, P. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wu, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Kelly, P. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 66, Issue 8 1258-1264, Copyright © 1984 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc

JOURNAL CONTENTS

Comparison of osteotomy healing under external fixation devices with different stiffness characteristics

JJ Wu, HS Shyr, EY Chao and PJ Kelly

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the rigidity of external fixation on osteotomy healing based on radiographic, morphological, histological, and biomechanical analyses of canine tibial osteotomies treated with more rigid (six half-pins) and less rigid (four half-pins) unilateral external fixators. Successful healing was obtained in all tibiae, but the bone-healing mechanisms appeared to be different depending on the rigidity of the device used. On the side with more rigid fixation, early clinical union was observed thirty days after osteotomy. Periosteal callus formation was significantly increased on the less rigidly fixed side at both ninety and 120 days (p less than 0.05). Fixation stiffness was found to affect the incidence of pin loosening (p less than 0.01) and of bone porosity (p less than 0.05) at the osteotomy site. However, new-bone formation and the structural strength of the bone were not significantly different between the four-pin and six-pin sides. These results seem to indicate that a longer period is required for fracture repair and remodeling when external fixation with less rigidity is used.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
E. F. Morgan, R. E. Gleason, L. N. M. Hayward, P. L. Leong, and K. T. S. Palomares
Mechanotransduction and Fracture Repair
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., February 1, 2008; 90(Supplement_1): 25 - 30.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
L. S. Phieffer and J. A. Goulet
Delayed Unions of the Tibia
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., January 1, 2006; 88(1): 205 - 216.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
H. Seeherman, R. Li, and J. Wozney
A Review of Preclinical Program Development for Evaluating Injectable Carriers for Osteogenic Factors
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., August 1, 2003; 85(90003): 96 - 108.
[Full Text] [PDF]