Myogenic progenitors contribute to open but not closed fracture repair

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bone repair is dependent on the presence of osteocompetent progenitors that are able to differentiate and generate new bone. Muscle is found in close association with orthopaedic injury, however its capacity to make a cellular contribution to bone repair remains ambiguous. We hypothesized that myogenic cells of the MyoD-lineage are able to contribute to bone repair.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We employed a <it>MyoD</it>-Cre⁺:Z/AP⁺conditional reporter mouse in which all cells of the MyoD-lineage are permanently labeled with a <it>human alkaline phosphatase (hAP) </it>reporter. We tracked the contribution of MyoD-lineage cells in mouse models of tibial bone healing.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In the absence of musculoskeletal trauma, MyoD-expressing cells are limited to skeletal muscle and the presence of reporter-positive cells in non-muscle tissues is negligible. In a closed tibial fracture model, there was no significant contribution of hAP⁺cells to the healing callus. In contrast, open tibial fractures featuring periosteal stripping and muscle fenestration had up to 50% of hAP⁺cells detected in the open fracture callus. At early stages of repair, many hAP⁺cells exhibited a chondrocyte morphology, with lesser numbers of osteoblast-like hAP⁺cells present at the later stages. Serial sections stained for hAP and type II and type I collagen showed that MyoD-lineage cells were surrounded by cartilaginous or bony matrix, suggestive of a functional role in the repair process. To exclude the prospect that osteoprogenitors spontaneously express MyoD during bone repair, we created a metaphyseal drill hole defect in the tibia. No hAP⁺staining was observed in this model suggesting that the expression of MyoD is not a normal event for endogenous osteoprogenitors.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These data document for the first time that muscle cells can play a significant secondary role in bone repair and this knowledge may lead to important translational applications in orthopaedic surgery.</p> <p>Please see related article: <url>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/9/136</url></p

Indications for implant removal after fracture healing: a review of the literature

Introduction: The aim of this review was to collect and summarize published data on the indications for implant removal after fracture healing, since these are not well defined and guidelines hardly exist. Methods: A literature search was performed. Results: Though there are several presumed benefits of implant removal, such as functional improvement and pain relief, the surgical procedure can be very challenging and may lead to complications or even worsening of the complaints. Research has focused on the safety of metal implants (e.g., risk of corrosion, allergy, and carcinogenesis). For these reasons, implants have been removed routinely for decades. Along with the introduction of titanium alloy implants, the need for implant removal became a subject of debate in view of potential (dis)advantages since, in general, implants made of titanium alloys are more difficult to remove. Currently, the main indications for removal from both the upper and lower extremity are mostly 'relative' and patient-driven, such as pain, prominent material, or simply the request for removal. True medical indications like infection or intra-articular material are minor reasons. Conclusion: This review illustrates the great variety of view points in the literature, with large differences in opinions and practices about the indications for implant removal after fracture healing. Since some studies have described asymptomatic patients developing complaints after removal, the general advice nowadays is to remove implants after fracture healing only in symptomatic patients and after a proper informed consent. Well-designed prospective studies on this subject are urgently needed in order to form guidelines based on scientific evidence

Treatment of distal tibial fractures: plate versus nail: A retrospective outcome analysis of matched pairs of patients

A study of 24 patients who sustained an extra-articular fracture of the distal third of the tibial shaft was performed to determine the effect of the type of treatment, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or closed reduction and intramedullary (IM) nailing, on the occurrence of malalignment. All patients were treated in our clinic between 1993 and 2001 for a fracture in the distal third of the tibia. Twelve patients treated with ORIF were matched to 12 patients treated with IM nailing, with regard to gender, age decade, and the AO classification of the fracture. The group treated with IM nailing was assessed after a mean 6.0 years versus ORIF after a mean of 4.5 years. Two patients treated with ORIF versus six patients treated with IM nailing had a malalignment of the tibia. Furthermore, we found no difference with regard to time to union, non-union, hardware failure or deep infections between ORIF and IM nailing. Our results suggest that control of alignment is difficult with IM nailing of distal tibial fractures. For optimal alignment we advise considering the use of ORIF for closed and type I open extra-articular fractures in the distal third of the tibia