4.1 Article

The expressions of NGF and VEGF in the fracture tissues are closely associated with accelerated clavicle fracture healing in patients with traumatic brain injury

期刊

THERAPEUTICS AND CLINICAL RISK MANAGEMENT
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 2315-2322

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S182325

关键词

traumatic brain injury; fracture healing; clavicle fracture; NGF; VEGF; angiogenesis

资金

  1. Science and Technology Program of Liuzhou [2015 J030524]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Angiogenesis and bone formation are vital for fracture healing. Nerve growth factor (NGF) not only promotes neuronal survival but also enhances the proliferation and differentiation of osteoblasts. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays an important role in angiogenesis. However, the potential correlation of NGF and VEGF levels with fracture healing in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains unclear. Methods: This study enrolled 22 patients with clavicle fracture and concomitant TBI (CFT group) and 25 patients with clavicle fracture alone (CF group). Serum NGF levels were measured with ELISA. The expressions of NGF, VEGF, and CD31 in callus tissues were measured with immunohistochemistry. Results: The fracture healing time in CFT group (82.22 +/- 13.61 days) was significantly shorter than that in CF group (127 +/- 25.05 days; P<0.001). The expression of CD31, marker of blood vessels, in callus tissues of CFT group was higher compared with that of CF group. Serum NGF levels and the expression of NGF in callus tissues of CFT group were higher than those in CF group (P< 0.01). The expressions of CD31, NGF, and VEGF are correlated with shorter fracture healing time. Conclusion: The formation of blood vessels was increased in CFT group compared with CF group. NGF and VEGF levels were higher in CFT group than in CF group and correlated with shorter fracture healing time. Accelerated fracture healing in patients with TBI may be due to NGF- and VEGF-mediated angiogenesis at the fracture site.

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

4.1
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