Small animal bone healing models : standards, tips, and pitfalls results of a consensus meeting
Histing, T. , Garcia, P. , Holstein, J. , Klein, M. , Matthys, R. , Nuetzi, R. , Steck, R., Laschke, M.W. , Wehner, T. , Bindl, R. , Recknagel, S. , Stuermer, E. , Vollmar, B. , Wildemann, B. , Lienau, J. , Willie, B. , Peters, A. , Ignatius, A. , Pohlemann, T. , Claes, L. , & Menger, M. (2011) Small animal bone healing models : standards, tips, and pitfalls results of a consensus meeting. Bone, 49(4), pp. 591-599.
Small animal fracture models have gained increasing interest in fracture healing studies. To achieve standardized and defined study conditions, various variables must be carefully controlled when designing fracture healing experiments in mice or rats. The strain, age and sex of the animals may influence the process of fracture healing. Furthermore, the choice of the fracture fixation technique depends on the questions addressed, whereby intra- and extramedullary implants as well as open and closed surgical approaches may be considered. During the last few years, a variety of different, highly sophisticated implants for fracture fixation in small animals have been developed. Rigid fixation with locking plates or external fixators results in predominantly intramembranous healing in both mice and rats. Locking plates, external fixators, intramedullary screws, the locking nail and the pin-clip device allow different degrees of stability resulting in various amounts of endochondral and intramembranous healing. The use of common pins that do not provide rotational and axial stability during fracture stabilization should be discouraged in the future. Analyses should include at least biomechanical and histological evaluations, even if the focus of the study is directed towards the elucidation of molecular mechanisms of fracture healing using the largely available spectrum of antibodies and gene-targeted animals to study molecular mechanisms of fracture healing. This review discusses distinct requirements for the experimental setups as well as the advantages and pitfalls of the different fixation techniques in rats and mice.
Impact and interest:
Citation countsare sourced monthly fromand citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from theindexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Additional Information:||Histing, T Garcia, P Holstein, J H Klein, M Matthys, R Nuetzi, R Steck, R Laschke, M W Wehner, T Bindl, R Recknagel, S Stuermer, E K Vollmar, B Wildemann, B Lienau, J Willie, B Peters, A Ignatius, A Pohlemann, T Claes, L Menger, M D United States Bone Bone. 2011 Oct;49(4):591-9. Epub 2011 Jul 19.|
|Keywords:||Animal bone healing models, Fracture healing, Rats, Mice, Fracture fixation|
|Subjects:||Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES (060000) > ZOOLOGY (060800)|
|Divisions:||Current > Institutes > Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation|
|Deposited On:||12 Oct 2011 09:01|
|Last Modified:||12 Oct 2011 09:02|
Repository Staff Only: item control page