Display options
Share it on

J Exp Orthop. 2019 Dec 01;6(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s40634-019-0214-4.

Periosteal incarceration versus interposition adipose tissue grafting in physeal fractures: pilot study in immature rabbits.

Journal of experimental orthopaedics

Eric W Edmonds, Joshua D Doan, Christine L Farnsworth

Affiliations

  1. Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Rady Children's Hospital, 3020 Children's Way, MC 5054, San Diego, CA, 92123, USA. [email protected].
  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California San Diego, 3020 Children's Way, MC 5054, San Diego, CA, 92123, USA. [email protected].
  3. Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Rady Children's Hospital, 3020 Children's Way, MC 5054, San Diego, CA, 92123, USA.

PMID: 31788750 PMCID: PMC6885469 DOI: 10.1186/s40634-019-0214-4

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate bar formation following physeal fracture with incarcerated periosteum or adipose tissue graft using radiographic and histological methods in an immature rabbit model.

METHODS: Ten-week-old rabbits underwent induced proximal tibia physeal fractures with a contralateral sham. Fractures had periosteum (n = 5) or adipose tissue (n = 5) interposed. Radiographs were compared over time by tibial medial-lateral side difference (TMLSD)(mm), femoral-tibial angle and tibia plateau angle, and physeal bars evidence. MicroCT was performed, growth plates reconstructed, and physeal area calculated and normalized to same animal contralateral physes. Physeal disruption and chondrocyte organization were evaluated histologically.

RESULTS: Radiographic: After 6 weeks, physeal bars formed in both periosteum (4 of 4) and fat groups (3 of 5). The periosteum group showed a significant increase in the TMLSD between immediate post-op and 10 days later (p = 0.028); but, after 6 weeks, TMLSD change was not significantly different between the three groups (p = 0.161). MicroCT: The normalized physeal area of every physis in the fat group was more than 0.9 (0.99 ± 0.06). Only half of the periosteum group was over 0.9 (0.81 ± 0.24).

HISTOLOGY: Physeal disruption was seen by microscopic evaluation in none of the sham group, all 4 in the periosteum group and 4 of 5 in the fat group.

CONCLUSIONS: Fat interposition may prevent, or at least delay, the onset of bars across a fractured physis compared to periosteum, but it is not completely protective.

Keywords: Adipose tissue graft; Periosteum incarceration; Physeal bar formation; Physeal fracture; Rabbit fracture model

References

  1. J Pediatr Orthop. 2002 Nov-Dec;22(6):703-9 - PubMed
  2. J Pediatr Orthop. 2002 Nov-Dec;22(6):710-6 - PubMed
  3. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2012 May;1(5):384-95 - PubMed
  4. Biores Open Access. 2015 Jan 01;4(1):65-74 - PubMed
  5. J Pediatr Orthop. 1981;1(1):3-11 - PubMed
  6. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1981 Feb;63-B(1):83-8 - PubMed
  7. Skeletal Radiol. 2015 Oct;44(10):1547-51 - PubMed
  8. Radiology. 2000 May;215(2):504-11 - PubMed
  9. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2018 Apr;24(2):85-97 - PubMed
  10. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2015 Dec;9(12):E202-9 - PubMed
  11. J Pediatr Orthop. 2009 Jun;29(4):356-61 - PubMed
  12. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1975 Aug;57(3):325-30 - PubMed
  13. J Pediatr Orthop. 2000 May-Jun;20(3):282-5 - PubMed
  14. J Pediatr Orthop. 1987 Jul-Aug;7(4):389-94 - PubMed
  15. J Pediatr Orthop. 2013 Jul-Aug;33(5):524-9 - PubMed
  16. J Pediatr Orthop. 2003 Nov-Dec;23(6):733-9 - PubMed
  17. J Pediatr Orthop. 1984 Mar;4(2):246-58 - PubMed
  18. Aust N Z J Surg. 1980 Aug;50(4):393-401 - PubMed
  19. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987 Oct;69(8):1297-302 - PubMed
  20. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986 Mar;68(2):234-8 - PubMed
  21. J Pediatr Orthop. 1990 Nov-Dec;10(6):769-76 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support