4.2 Article

Autogenous Greater Omentum, as a Free Nonvascularized Graft, Enhances Bone Healing: An Experimental Nonunion Model

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE SURGERY
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 129-137

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/08941930802566730

关键词

Omentum; Free graft; Bone healing; Osteotomy; Hypertrophic nonunion; Angiogenesis

类别

资金

  1. Urmia University College of Veterinary Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reconstruction of vascularity is an early event in fracture healing and upregulation of angiogenesis may therefore promote the formation of bone. We have investigated the potentiality of autogenous free nonvascularized greater omentum to stimulate the formation of bone in an experimental hypertrophic nonunion model. Twelve dogs assigned into two identical groups underwent a standard nonunion operation. In the experimental group, this was followed by application of autogenous greater omentum as a free nonvascularized graft around the osteotomy gap. Radiographic assessments were conducted time-sequentially until euthanasia 16 weeks after surgery. Histological analysis was performed on the mid-radial diaphysis containing the 4-month-old osteotomy site. Radiological and histological properties of the group treated with free transplant of the greater omentum revealed complete union. In contrast, there was no evidence indicating union in the control group. Analyses of the radiological and histological scores confirmed that osteotomies treated with free transplant of the autogenous greater omentum had united, whereas the osteotomies of the control group failed to unite. Significant differences between the mean values for radiological and histological-grading score in the control and experimental groups were detected (p 0.05). We showed that free graft of autogenous greater omentum could stimulate the formation of competent bone in an environment deprived of its normal vascularization. Hence, it could be recommended to enhance healing when the fractures are at risk of nonunion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据