Cited by 60Bone fractures and treatmentsBone health and osteoporosis researchSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Modulation of fixation stiffness from flexible to stiff in a rat model of bone healing

Open access

Abstract

Background and purpose - Constant fixator stiffness for the duration of healing may not provide suitable mechanical conditions for all stages of bone repair. We therefore investigated the influence of stiffening fixation on callus stiffness and morphology in a rat diaphyseal osteotomy model to determine whether healing time was shortened and callus stiffness increased through modulation of fixation from flexible to stiff. Material and methods - An external unilateral fixator was applied to the osteotomized femur and stiffened by decreasing the offset of the inner fixator bar at 3, 7, 14, and 21 days after operation. After 5 weeks, the rats were killed and healing was evaluated with mechanical, histological, and microcomputed tomography methods. Constant fixation stiffness control groups with either stiff or flexible fixation were included for comparison. Results - The callus stiffness of the stiff group and all 4 experimental groups was greater than in the flexible group. The callus of the flexible group was larger but contained a higher proportion of unmineralized tissue and cartilage. The stiff and modulated groups (3, 7, 14, and 21 days) all showed bony bridging at 5 weeks, as well as signs of callus remodeling. Stiffening fixation at 7 and 14 days after osteotomy produced the highest degree of callus bridging. Bone mineral density in the fracture gap was highest in animals in which the fixation was stiffened after 14 days. Interpretation - The predicted benefit of a large robust callus formed through early flexible fixation could not be shown, but the benefits of stabilizing a flexible construct to achieve timely healing were demonstrated at all time points.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17453674.2016.1256940

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The mechanical demands for optimal healing change throughout the healing process from little to more movement and forces in the fracture gap.

    “The mechanical demands for optimal healing are known to change throughout the healing process from little to more movement and forces in the fracture gap (10–12).”

    From Methods to accelerate fracture healing – a narrative review from a clinical perspective (2024) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Abstract’s Interpretation describes the proposed sequence as flexible fixation early, followed by rigid fixation later to reduce tissue strain. The Discussion likewise favors adequate stimulation early and greater stability later—the opposite of the claimed progression from little to more movement in the fracture gap. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31825d01b2 · DOI
  2. 10.2106/JBJS.J.00780 · DOI
  3. 10.1302/0301-620X.79B1.6324 · DOI
  4. 10.1002/jor.1100150414 · DOI
  5. 10.1302/0301-620X.82B1.9332 · DOI
  6. 10.1002/jor.20712 · DOI
  7. Coutts R D, 1982, Clin Orthop, 163, 254, 10.1097/00003086-198203000-00039 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.bone.2005.10.023 · DOI
  9. 10.2106/JBJS.F.00247 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.mehy.2013.04.044 · DOI
  11. 10.1369/jhc.6A6959.2006 · DOI
  12. 10.2106/00004623-198567040-00028 · DOI
  13. Kenwright J, 1998, Clin Orthop, 355, S179, 10.1097/00003086-199810001-00019 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/S0736-0266(02)00259-0 · DOI
  15. 10.1002/jor.20435 · DOI
  16. Muller J, 1968, Helv Chir Acta, 35, 301
  17. 10.1097/00005131-199902000-00003 · DOI
  18. Perren S M, Cordey J. The concept of interfragmentary strain. Current Concepts of Internal Fixation of Fractures. 1980. pp. 63–77.
  19. 10.1002/jor.21299 · DOI
  20. 10.1002/jor.22242 · DOI
  21. Rubinstein R A, 1992, J Orthop Trauma, 6, 90
  22. 10.3109/17453670903035567 · DOI
  23. 10.1002/jor.21182 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.05.028 · DOI
  25. 10.1002/jor.22721 · DOI
  26. Willenegger H, 1971, Chirurg, 42, 241
  27. 10.1002/jor.20792 · DOI
  28. 10.1007/s11999-011-1866-2 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bartnikowski, N., Claes, L. E., Koval, L., Glatt, V., Bindl, R., Steck, R., Ignatius, A., Schuetz, M. A., & Epari, D. R.
Affiliations
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • University Hospital Ulm (DE)
Corresponding author
Epari, Devakara R
Venue
Acta Orthopaedica
Published
2016-11-14
Volume
88
Issue
2
Pages
217-222
ISSN
  • 1745-3674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-3682
OpenAlex
W2549373029
Cited by
60
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4
FWCI
4.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Acta Orthopaedica (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone fractures and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Spinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Keywords
external fixator, callus stiffness, callus remodeling, diaphyseal osteotomy, femur, bone regeneration, bone mineral density, rat model
MeSH terms
Animals, Biomechanical Phenomena, Bony Callus, Femoral Fractures, Femur, Fracture Fixation, Male, Osteotomy, Random Allocation, External Fixators, Fracture Healing, Rats, Wistar, Diaphyses, Rats, X-Ray Microtomography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review