The treatment of osteoporotic fractures is a major challenge, and the enhancement of healing is critical as a major goal in modern fracture management. Most osteoporotic fractures occur at the metaphyseal bone region but few models exist and the healing is still poorly understood. A systematic review was conducted to identify and analyse the appropriateness of current osteoporotic metaphyseal fracture animal models. A literature search was performed on the Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science databases, and relevant articles were selected. A total of 19 studies were included. Information on the animal, induction of osteoporosis, fracture technique, site and fixation, healing results, and utility of the model were extracted.Objectives
Materials and Methods
Although success has been achieved with implantation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (bMSCs) in degenerative discs, its full potential may not be achieved if the harsh environment of the degenerative disc remains. Axial distraction has been shown to increase hydration and nutrition. Combining both therapies may have a synergistic effect in reversing degenerative disc disease. In order to evaluate the effect of bMSC implantation, axial distraction and combination therapy in stimulating regeneration and retarding degeneration in degenerative discs, we first induced disc degeneration by axial loading in a rabbit model. The rabbits in the intervention groups performed better with respect to disc height, morphological grading, histological scoring and average dead cell count. The groups with distraction performed better than those without on all criteria except the average dead cell count. Our findings suggest that bMSC implantation and distraction stimulate regenerative changes in degenerative discs in a rabbit model.
We have investigated the errors in the identification of the transepicondylar axis and the anteroposterior axis between a minimally-invasive and a conventional approach in four fresh-frozen cadaver knees. The errors in aligning the femoral prosthesis were compared with the reference transepicondylar axis as established by CT. The error in the identification of the transepicondylar axis was significantly higher in the minimal approach (4.5° of internal rotation,
