Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Ultrasound | Review

The progress in quantitative evaluation of callus during distraction osteogenesis

Authors: Qi Liu, Ze Liu, Hongbin Guo, Jieyu Liang, Yi Zhang

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

The manual monitoring of callus with digital radiography (X-ray) is the primary bone healing evaluation, assessing the number of bridged callus formations. However, this method is subjective and nonquantitative. Recently, several quantitative monitoring methods, which could assess the recovery of the structure and biomechanical properties of the callus at different stages and the process of bone healing, have been extensively investigated. These methods could reflect the bone mineral content (BMC), bone mineral density (BMD), stiffness, callus and bone metabolism at the site of bone lengthening. In this review, we comprehensively summarized the latest techniques for evaluating bone healing during distraction osteogenesis (DO): 1) digital radiography; 2) dual-energy X-ray scanning; 3) ultrasound; 4) quantitative computed tomography; 5) biomechanical evaluation; and 6) biochemical markers. This evidence will provide novel and significant information for evaluating bone healing during DO in the future.

Ilizarov GA. The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues: Part II. The influence of the rate and frequency of distraction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;238(239):263–385.

Malkova TA, Borzunov DY. International recognition of the Ilizarov bone reconstruction techniques: Current practice and research (dedicated to 100(th) birthday of G. A. Ilizarov). World J Orthop. 2021;12:515–33. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v12.i8.515.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Shchudlo N, et al. Benefits of Ilizarov automated bone distraction for nerves and articular cartilage in experimental leg lengthening. World J Orthop. 2017;8:688–96. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v8.i9.688.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Liu Y, et al. Complications of bone transport technique using the Ilizarov method in the lower extremity: a retrospective analysis of 282 consecutive cases over 10 years. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21:354. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03335-w.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Borzunov DY, Kolchin SN, Malkova TA. Role of the Ilizarov non-free bone plasty in the management of long bone defects and nonunion: Problems solved and unsolved. World J Orthop. 2020;11:304–18. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v11.i6.304.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Tesiorowski M, Kacki W, Jasiewicz B, Rymarczyk A, Sebastianowicz P. Methods for the evaluation of bone regeneration during distraction osteogenesis. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol. 2005;70:127–30.PubMed

Babatunde O, Fragomen A, Rozbruch S. Noninvasive quantitative assessment of bone healing after distraction osteogenesis. HSS J. 2010;6:71–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-009-9130-y.CrossRefPubMed

Aronson J, Shin HD. Imaging techniques for bone regenerate analysis during distraction osteogenesis. J Pediatr Orthop. 2003;23:550–60.PubMed

Anand A, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of radiographic evidence of bone healing at osteotomy sites. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2006;15:271–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/01202412-200607000-00007.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Starr KA, Fillman R, Raney EM. Reliability of radiographic assessment of distraction osteogenesis site. J Pediatr Orthop. 2004;24:26–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004694-200401000-00006.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Eyres KS, Bell MJ, Kanis JA. New bone formation during leg lengthening. Evaluated by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:96–106. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.75b1.8421047.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Fischgrund J, Paley D, Suter C. Variables affecting time to bone healing during limb lengthening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;301:31–7.

13.

Skaggs DL, et al. Secondary fractures associated with external fixation in pediatric femur fractures. J Pediatr Orthop. 1999;19:582–6.PubMed

14.

Vaccaro C, Busetto R, Bernardini D, Anselmi C, Zotti A. Accuracy and precision of computer-assisted analysis of bone density via conventional and digital radiography in relation to dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Am J Vet Res. 2012;73:381–4. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.73.3.381.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Song SH, et al. Serial bone mineral density ratio measurement for fixator removal in tibia distraction osteogenesis and need of a supportive method using the pixel value ratio. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2012;21:137–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPB.0b013e32834f04f3.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Zhao L, Fan Q, Venkatesh KP, Park MS, Song HR. Objective guidelines for removing an external fixator after tibial lengthening using pixel value ratio: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:3321–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1011-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Bafor A, Duncan ME, Iobst CA. Evaluating the Utility of the Pixel Value Ratio in the Determination of Time to Full Weight-bearing in Patients Undergoing Intramedullary Limb Lengthening. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2020;15:74–8. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1461.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Vulcano E, et al. Assessment of Bone Healing During Antegrade Intramedullary Rod Femur Lengthening Using Radiographic Pixel Density. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018;26:e388–94. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00949.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Zak L, Tiefenboeck TM, Wozasek GE. Bone reconstruction: Subjective evaluation and objective analysis based on conventional digital X-rays - a retrospective evaluation. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021;103081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2021.103081.

20.

Lucas K, et al. Comparative measurements of bone mineral density and bone contrast values in canine femora using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and conventional digital radiography. BMC Vet Res. 2017;13:130. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-017-1047-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Abu-Serriah M, Ayoub A, Boyd J, Paterson C, Wray D. The role of ultrasound in monitoring reconstruction of mandibular continuity defects using osteogenic protein-1 (rhOP-1). Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;32:619–27. https://doi.org/10.1054/ijom.2002.0421.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kanis JA, Gluer CC. An update on the diagnosis and assessment of osteoporosis with densitometry. Committee of Scientific Advisors International Osteoporosis Foundation. Osteoporos Int. 2000;11:192–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001980050281.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Woo T, et al. Radiographic/MR Imaging Correlation of Spinal Bony Outlines. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2019;27:625–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2019.07.004.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Cozadd AJ, Schroder LK, Switzer JA. Fracture Risk Assessment: An Update. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021;103:1238–46. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.20.01071.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Eyres KS, Bell MJ, Kanis JA. Methods of assessing new bone formation during limb lengthening. Ultrasonography, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and radiography compared. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:358–64. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.75B3.8496200.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Maffulli N, Cheng JC, Sher A, Lam TP. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry predicts bone formation in lower limb callotasis lengthening. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1997;79:250–6.PubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Reiter A, Sabo D, Pfeil J, Cotta H. Quantitative assessment of callus distraction using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Int Orthop. 1997;21:35–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002640050114.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Saran N, Hamdy RC. DEXA as a predictor of fixator removal in distraction osteogenesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2955–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0514-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Tselentakis G, et al. Fracture stiffness in callotasis determined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scanning. J Pediatr Orthop B. 2001;10:248–54.PubMed

30.

Monsell F, Hughes AW, Turner J, Bellemore MC, Bilston L. Can the material properties of regenerate bone be predicted with non-invasive methods of assessment? Exploring the correlation between dual X-ray absorptiometry and compression testing to failure in an animal model of distraction osteogenesis. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2014;9:45–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11751-014-0188-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Floerkemeier T, et al. Comparison of bone mineral parameter measurements by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry with bone stiffness measurements as indicators of the load-bearing capacity of regenerating bone. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24:181–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181bae887.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Engelke K, Libanati C, Fuerst T, Zysset P, Genant HK. Advanced CT based in vivo methods for the assessment of bone density, structure, and strength. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2013;11:246–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-013-0147-2.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Akinmade A, Ikem I, Ayoola O, Orimolade E, Adeyeye A. Comparing ultrasonography with plain radiography in the diagnosis of paediatric long-bone fractures. Int Orthop. 2019;43:1143–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4133-2.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Roux C, Dougados M. Quantitative ultrasound in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2000;12:336–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002281-200007000-00018.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Derbyshire ND, Simpson AH. A role for ultrasound in limb lengthening. Br J Radiol. 1992;65:576–80. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-65-775-576.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Haubruck P, et al. A Preliminary Study of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) and Cytokine Expression Analysis (CEA) as Early Predictors for the Outcome of Tibial Non-Union Therapy. Diagnostics (Basel). 2018;8(3):55. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics8030055.CrossRef

37.

Augat P, Morgan EF, Lujan TJ, MacGillivray TJ, Cheung WH. Imaging techniques for the assessment of fracture repair. Injury. 2014;45(Suppl 2):S16-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.04.004.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Issar Y, Sahoo NK, Sinha R, Satija L, Chattopadhyay PK. Comparative evaluation of the mandibular distraction zone using ultrasonography and conventional radiography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;43:587–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2013.11.016.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Andrade N, Aggrawal N, Jadhav G, Sahu V, Mathai PC. To determine the efficacy of ultrasonography in the evaluation of bone fill at the regenerate site for mandibular distraction osteogenesis over clinical and radiographic assessment- An in vivo prospective study. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2018;8:89–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2018.04.005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Xiang T, Zhou L, Fu P, Yan XP, Zeng XQ. Value of quantitative ultrasound and bioelectrical impedance analysis in detecting low bone mineral density in hemodialysis. Ren Fail. 2021;43:1198–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886022X.2021.1959347.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Rufus-Membere P, Holloway-Kew KL, Diez-Perez A, Kotowicz MA, Pasco JA. Associations between Bone Material Strength Index, Calcaneal Quantitative Ultrasound, and Bone Mineral Density in Men. J Endocr Soc. 2021;5:bvaa179. https://doi.org/10.1210/jendso/bvaa179.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Schraders K, et al. Quantitative Ultrasound and Dual X-Ray Absorptiometry as Indicators of Bone Mineral Density in Young Women and Nutritional Factors Affecting It. Nutrients. 2019;11(10):2336. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11102336.CrossRefPubMedCentral

43.

Mesquita AQ, Barbieri G, Barbieri CH. Correlation between ultrasound velocity and densitometry in fresh and demineralized cortical bone. Clinics. 2016;71:657–63. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2016(11)07.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Sorriento A, Poliziani A, Cafarelli A, Valenza G, Ricotti L. A novel quantitative and reference-free ultrasound analysis to discriminate different concentrations of bone mineral content. Sci Rep. 2021;11:301. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79365-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Tang S, Shajudeen P, Tasciotti E, Righetti R. Identification of ultrasound imaging markers to quantify long bone regeneration in a segmental tibial defect sheep model in vivo. Sci Rep. 2020;10:13646. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70426-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Troulis MJ, Coppe C, O’Neill MJ, Kaban LB. Ultrasound: assessment of the distraction osteogenesis wound in patients undergoing mandibular lengthening. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;61:1144–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0278-2391(03)00672-4.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Poposka A, Atanasov N, Dzoleva-Tolevska R. Use of ultrasonography in evaluation of new bone formation in patients treated by the method of Ilizarov. Prilozi. 2012;33:199–208.PubMed

48.

Neretin AS, Menshchikova TI. Value of ultrasonography and radiography for the study of bone regeneration in lengthening of the fourth ray in brachymetatarsia. Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;27:432–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2020.05.013.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Haffner-Luntzer M, et al. Evaluation of high-resolution In Vivo MRI for longitudinal analysis of endochondral fracture healing in mice. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0174283. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174283.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

He GY, et al. The clinical effect and imaging features of accordion maneuver in promoting bone healing at the docking site after tibial transport under ultrasonic monitoring. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2021;59:477–83. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112139-20210125-00052.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Young JW, Kostrubiak IS, Resnik CS, Paley D. Sonographic evaluation of bone production at the distraction site in Ilizarov limb-lengthening procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;154:125–8. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.154.1.2104695.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Laugier P. An overview of bone sonometry. Int Congr Ser. 2004;1274:23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2004.07.034.CrossRef

53.

Engelke K. Quantitative Computed Tomography-Current Status and New Developments. J Clin Densitom. 2017;20:309–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2017.06.017.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Kokoroghiannis C, et al. Correlation of pQCT bone strength index with mechanical testing in distraction osteogenesis. Bone. 2009;45:512–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2009.05.021.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Harp JH, Aronson J, Hollis M. Noninvasive determination of bone stiffness for distraction osteogenesis by quantitative computed tomography scans. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;301:42–8.

56.

Engelke K, et al. Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) of the forearm using general purpose spiral whole-body CT scanners: accuracy, precision and comparison with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Bone. 2009;45:110–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2009.03.669.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Swennen GR, Eulzer C, Schutyser F, Huttmann C, Schliephake H. Assessment of the distraction regenerate using three-dimensional quantitative computer tomography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;34:64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2004.03.019.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Inacio JV, Malige A, Schroeder JT, Nwachuku CO, Dailey HL. Mechanical characterization of bone quality in distal femur fractures using pre-operative computed tomography scans. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2019;67:20–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.04.014.CrossRef

59.

Rianon NJ, et al. Fracture risk assessment in older adults using a combination of selected quantitative computed tomography bone measures: a subanalysis of the Age Gene/Environment Susceptibility-Reykjavik Study. J Clin Densitom. 2014;17:25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2013.03.005.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Anitha D, Lee T. Assessing bone quality in terms of bone mineral density, buckling ratio and critical fracture load. J Bone Metab. 2014;21:243–7. https://doi.org/10.11005/jbm.2014.21.4.243.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

61.

Borggrefe J, et al. Association of 3D Geometric Measures Derived From Quantitative Computed Tomography With Hip Fracture Risk in Older Men. J Bone Miner Res. 2016;31:1550–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.2821.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Suzuki T, et al. Biomechanics of callus in the bone healing process, determined by specimen-specific finite element analysis. Bone. 2020;132:115212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2019.115212.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Dailey HL, et al. Virtual Mechanical Testing Based on Low-Dose Computed Tomography Scans for Tibial Fracture: A Pilot Study of Prediction of Time to Union and Comparison with Subjective Outcomes Scoring. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101:1193–202. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.01139.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Vijayakumar V, Quenneville CE. Quantifying the regional variations in the mechanical properties of cancellous bone of the tibia using indentation testing and quantitative computed tomographic imaging. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2016;230:588–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954411916642800.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Turner CH, Burr DB. Basic biomechanical measurements of bone: a tutorial. Bone. 1993;14:595–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/8756-3282(93)90081-k.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Martin DE, Severns AE, Kabo JM. Determination of mechanical stiffness of bone by pQCT measurements: correlation with non-destructive mechanical four-point bending test data. J Biomech. 2004;37:1289–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2003.12.009.CrossRefPubMed

67.

Sferra J, Kambic HE, Schickendantz MS, Watson JT. Biomechanical analysis of canine bone lengthened by the callotasis method. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;311:222–6.

68.

Kolbeck S, et al. Digital radiography. A predictor of regenerate bone stiffness in distraction osteogenesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;366:221–8.

69.

Dwyer JS, Owen PJ, Evans GA, Kuiper JH, Richardson JB. Stiffness measurements to assess healing during leg lengthening. A preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:286–9.CrossRef

70.

Chotel F, et al. Bone stiffness in children: part I. In vivo assessment of the stiffness of femur and tibia in children. J Pediatr Orthop. 2008;28:534–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e31817762cb.CrossRefPubMed

71.

Beaupied H, Lespessailles E, Benhamou CL. Evaluation of macrostructural bone biomechanics. Joint Bone Spine. 2007;74:233–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2007.01.019.CrossRefPubMed

72.

Windhagen H, et al. A new device to quantify regenerate torsional stiffness in distraction osteogenesis. J Biomech. 1999;32:857–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-9290(99)00064-0.CrossRefPubMed

73.

Floerkemeier T, et al. Comparison of various types of stiffness as predictors of the load-bearing capacity of callus tissue. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:1694–9. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87B12.16247.CrossRefPubMed

74.

Wendlova J. Bone quality Elasticity and strength. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2008;109:383–6.PubMed

75.

Ishimoto T, Nakano T, Yamamoto M, Tabata Y. Biomechanical evaluation of regenerating long bone by nanoindentation. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2011;22:969–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-011-4266-y.CrossRefPubMed

76.

Sakamoto M. Estimations of mechanical properties of bones using nanoindentation. Clin Calcium. 2016;26:81–91 (CliCa16018191).PubMed

77.

Chappard D, Basle MF, Legrand E, Audran M. New laboratory tools in the assessment of bone quality. Osteoporos Int. 2011;22:2225–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1573-6.CrossRefPubMed

78.

Bowman L, Loucks AB. In Vivo Assessment of Cortical Bone Fragility. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2020;18:13–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-020-00558-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

79.

Bowman L, Ellerbrock ER, Hausfeld GC, Neumeyer JM, Loucks AB. A new noninvasive mechanical bending test accurately predicts ulna bending strength in cadaveric human arms. Bone. 2019;120:336–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2018.11.018.CrossRefPubMed

80.

Hasler CC, Krieg AH. Current concepts of leg lengthening. J Child Orthop. 2012;6:89–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11832-012-0391-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

81.

Mattei L, Di Puccio F, Marchetti S. In vivo impact testing on a lengthened femur with external fixation: a future option for the non-invasive monitoring of fracture healing? J R Soc Interface. 2018;15(142):20180068. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2018.0068.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

82.

Mora-Macias J, Reina-Romo E, Dominguez J. Distraction osteogenesis device to estimate the axial stiffness of the callus in Vivo. Med Eng Phys. 2015;37:969–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2015.07.008.CrossRefPubMed

83.

Mora-Macias J, Reina-Romo E, Lopez-Pliego M, Giraldez-Sanchez MA, Dominguez J. In Vivo Mechanical Characterization of the Distraction Callus During Bone Consolidation. Ann Biomed Eng. 2015;43:2663–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-015-1330-7.CrossRefPubMed

84.

Liu Y, et al. Bony callus stiffness indirectly evaluated by the axial load-share ratio in vivo as a guide to removing a monolateral external fixator safely. Int Orthop. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-021-05116-z.CrossRefPubMed

85.

Aarnes GT, et al. In vivo assessment of regenerate axial stiffness in distraction osteogenesis. J Orthop Res. 2005;23:494–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orthres.2004.08.024.CrossRefPubMed

86.

Blazquez-Carmona P, et al. Mechanobiology of Bone Consolidation During Distraction Osteogenesis: Bone Lengthening Vs. Bone Transport. Ann Biomed Eng. 2021;49:1209–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-020-02665-z.CrossRefPubMed

87.

Mora-Macias J, Giraldez-Sanchez MA, Lopez M, Dominguez J, Reina-Romo ME. Comparison of methods for assigning the material properties of the distraction callus in computational models. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2019;35:e3227. https://doi.org/10.1002/cnm.3227.CrossRefPubMed

88.

Reina-Romo E, Gomez-Benito MJ, Sampietro-Fuentes A, Dominguez J, Garcia-Aznar JM. Three-dimensional simulation of mandibular distraction osteogenesis: mechanobiological analysis. Ann Biomed Eng. 2011;39:35–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-010-0166-4.CrossRefPubMed

89.

Wehner T, Steiner M, Ignatius A, Claes L. Prediction of the time course of callus stiffness as a function of mechanical parameters in experimental rat fracture healing studies–a numerical study. PLoS ONE. 2014;9: e115695. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115695.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

90.

Wu J, Liu L, Hu H, Gao Z, Lu S. Bioinformatic analysis and experimental identification of blood biomarkers for chronic nonunion. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15:208. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01735-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

91.

Zhu Z, Zhou H, Wang Y, Yao X. Associations between bone turnover markers and bone mineral density in older adults. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2021;29:2309. https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499020987653.CrossRef

92.

Kumar M, Shelke D, Shah S. Prognostic potential of markers of bone turnover in delayed-healing tibial diaphyseal fractures. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2019;45:31–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-017-0879-2.CrossRefPubMed

93.

Windhagen H, et al. Bone turnover during distraction osteogenesis in an experimental sheep model. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2002;122:279–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-001-0380-5.CrossRefPubMed

94.

Fink B, et al. Time course of osteocalcin, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, and C-terminal procollagen peptide during callus distraction. J Pediatr Orthop. 2001;21:246–51.PubMed

95.

Fink B, Fox F, Singer J, Skripitz R, Feldkamp J. Monitoring of bone formation during distraction osteogenesis via osteocalcin: a time sequence study in dogs. J Orthop Sci. 2002;7:557–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007760200099.CrossRefPubMed

96.

Leung KS, Lee KM, Chan CW, Mak A, Fung KP. Mechanical characterization of regenerated osseous tissue during callotasis and its related biological phenomenon. Life Sci. 2000;66:327–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0024-3205(99)00594-9.CrossRefPubMed

Title: The progress in quantitative evaluation of callus during distraction osteogenesis
Authors: Qi Liu
Ze Liu
Hongbin Guo
Jieyu Liang
Yi Zhang
Publication date: 01-12-2022
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Ultrasound
Ultrasound
External Fixator
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05458-8

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The progress in quantitative evaluation of callus during distraction osteogenesis

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Comparison of blood loss between tranexamic acid-soaked absorbable Gelfoam and topical retrograde injection via drainage catheter plus clamping in cervical laminoplasty surgery

FK506 increases susceptibility to musculoskeletal infection in a rodent model

Oncologic and functional outcomes of different reconstruction modalities after resection of chondrosarcoma of the scapula: a medium- to long-term follow-up study

Apical region correction and global balance: a 3-rods surgical strategy for the treatment of severe and rigid scoliosis

Minimally invasive trans-superior articular process percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy with robot assistance

Risk factors of fracture following curettage for bone giant cell tumors of the extremities