Abstract

BackgroundDistraction osteogenesis is a procedure widely used for the correction of large bone defects. However, a high complication rate persists, likely due to insufficient stability during maturation. Numerical fracture healing models predict bone regeneration under different mechanical conditions allowing fixation stiffness optimization. However, most models apply a linear elastic material law inappropriate for the transient stresses/strains present during limb lengthening or segment transport. They are also often validated using in vivo osteotomy models lacking precise mechanical regulation due to the unavoidable stimulation of secondary interfragmentary motion during ambulation under finitely stiff fixation. Therefore, in order to create a robust numerical model of distraction osteogenesis, it is necessary to both characterize the new tissue’s viscoelasticity during distraction and determine the influence of strictly isolated stimulation in each loading mode (tension, compression, and shear) to account for potential differences in mechanical and histological response.AimTwo electromechanical fixators with integrated load cells were designed to precisely perform and monitor in vivo lateral distraction and isolated stimulation in sheep tibiae using a mobile, hydroxyapatite-coated titanium plate. The novel surgical procedure circumvents osteotomy, eliminating the undesirable and unquantifiable mechanical stimulation during ambulation.MethodsAfter a 10-day post-surgery latency period, two 0.275 mm distraction steps were performed daily for 10 days. The load cell collected data before, during, and after each distraction step and was terminated after no less than one minute from the time of distraction. A 7-day consolidation period separated the distraction phase and 18-day stimulation phase. Stimulation was carried out in isolated tension, compression, or shear while recording force/time data. Each stimulation session consisted of 120 cycles with a magnitude of either 0.1 mm or 0.6 mm in the tension and compression groups and 1.0 mm in the shear group. The animals were euthanized after a 3-day holding period following stimulation.ResultsOur initial results show that the tissue progressively stiffens and maintains an increasingly large residual traction. The force curves during compressive stimulation show a progressive drift from compression toward tension. We hypothesize that this behavior may be due to the preferential flow of fluid outward from the tissue and a greater resistance to reabsorption during the plate’s return to the starting position.

Highlights

  • Distraction osteogenesis (DO) is a surgical procedure widely used for the treatment of pathological conditions requiring the formation of a large volume of new bone

  • Distraction osteogenesis research has been limited by incomplete understanding of the material properties of the newly developing gap tissue and its evolution throughout the distraction and consolidation period

  • This work has provided an in vivo response to these limitations, allowing precise mechanical conditions and measurements throughout the entire procedure

Read more

Summary

Background

Distraction osteogenesis is a procedure widely used for the correction of large bone defects. Numerical fracture healing models predict bone regeneration under different mechanical conditions allowing fixation stiffness optimization. Most models apply a linear elastic material law inappropriate for the transient stresses/strains present during limb lengthening or segment transport. They are often validated using in vivo osteotomy models lacking precise mechanical regulation due to the unavoidable stimulation of secondary interfragmentary motion during ambulation under finitely stiff fixation. In order to create a robust numerical model of distraction osteogenesis, it is necessary to both characterize the new tissue’s viscoelasticity during distraction and determine the influence of strictly isolated stimulation in each loading mode (tension, compression, and shear) to account for potential differences in mechanical and histological response

Aim
Methods
Results
Introduction
Materials and methods
Technical procedure
Discussion
Limitations
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call