These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Progressive limb lengthening with a centromedullary nail versus an external fixator: experimental study in sheep].
    Author: Caton J, Rubini J, Panisset JC, Fau D, Guichet JM, Arlot M, Roux JP, Braillon P, Patricot LM.
    Journal: Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot; 2001 May; 87(3):237-47. PubMed ID: 11351223.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Progressive limb lengthening with an external fixator often leads to pin-related complications. A new technique allowing progressive lengthening with a centromedullary nail without external fixation has been developed. This original double-locked device consists of matching male and female components fitted with a continuous thread. Lengthening is achieved via a one-way ratchet system. Twelve back-and-forth movements produce 1.25 mm lengthening. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We tested this new device on 20 sheep and compared results with external fixation lengthening in 20 other sheep. The animals were divided into groups for sacrifice on days 5, 10, 20, 45 and 90. Serial x-ray were obtained for all animals. In the 45-day and 90-day groups, histomorphometric (trichrome goldner coloration and polarized light microscopy) and densitometric studies were also performed. Bone mineral density (BMD) was determined and bone trabecular density (BTD) and trabecular bone volume (TBV) were expressed in percent of bone trabecular surface area. RESULTS: Mean lengthening in the 45-day and 90-day groups was 39 mm for the nail and 20 mm for external fixation (1 mm/day). At 90 days, 3 sheep out of 4 had consolidated radiologically with external fixation and 2 out of 4 with the nail. BMD was slightly better for external fixation (0.811 vs 0.695/cm(2)). This difference could probably be attributed to the greater lengthening obtained with the nail. At 45 days, BMD was the same (0.6 g/cm(2)) for both devices. BTD was nearly two-fold higher for the nail compared with external fixation (59.65% vs 32.61% at 90 days), most probably due to primary bone formation. The histomorphometric study allowed an analysis of the osteoid border. Bone quality obtained in the bone regenerate with the nail was superior to that obtained with external fixation. Primary bone formation resulted from membrane ossification with direct transformation of fibroblasts into osteoblasts. CONCLUSION: This work demonstrated that progressive lengthening can be achieved with a specifically designed centromedullary nail without iterative opening of the operative site. Tolerance to this type of device and quality of the bone regenerate are altogether satisfactory.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]