本文選題：大鼠 + 骨折�。� 參考：《蘇州大學(xué)》2008年碩士論文

【摘要】： 用于長(zhǎng)骨干骨折愈合研究的動(dòng)物模型通常有兩種:開(kāi)放截骨模型與閉合骨折模型。開(kāi)放截骨模型具有骨折面平整,骨折線可以任意控制,骨折模型重復(fù)性好等優(yōu)點(diǎn),但目前有較多報(bào)道開(kāi)放截骨模型骨折端接觸面積小,骨折不穩(wěn)定,容易移位,手術(shù)過(guò)程中對(duì)周?chē)M織損傷較大,并且會(huì)對(duì)骨組織產(chǎn)生熱損傷,因此對(duì)骨折愈合的影響因素增加。閉合性骨折模型局部軟組織損傷小,骨折斷端犬牙交錯(cuò),骨折穩(wěn)定不易再移位,外來(lái)干擾因素少,可較真實(shí)反應(yīng)骨折愈合過(guò)程。目前國(guó)際上對(duì)近中期骨折愈合研究的模型一般采用閉合骨折模型,而國(guó)內(nèi)仍較多應(yīng)用開(kāi)放截骨模型。為此我們對(duì)兩種模型進(jìn)行比較,從而為今后骨折愈合基礎(chǔ)研究的模型選擇提供參考。 目的:通過(guò)比較大鼠股骨開(kāi)放截骨模型與閉合骨折模型的制作及其骨折的愈合過(guò)程,對(duì)比兩種模型的優(yōu)缺點(diǎn),為今后骨折愈合基礎(chǔ)研究的模型選擇提供參考 方法: 1兩種模型制作的比較:40只雄性SD大鼠隨機(jī)分為開(kāi)放組與閉合組。開(kāi)放組行開(kāi)放截骨術(shù)造成股骨中段橫行骨折,逆行克氏針固定;閉合組行逆行克氏針固后,使用造模支架致股骨中段閉合骨折。比較兩組的平均造模時(shí)間,造模成功率及術(shù)后2,3,4,8周骨折愈合的X線情況。 2兩種模型骨折愈合的比較: 80只雄性SD大鼠隨機(jī)分為開(kāi)放組與閉合組。手術(shù)方法同上。并于術(shù)后30min、1、2、3、4、8周對(duì)兩組標(biāo)本分別攝X線片和HE染色,進(jìn)行觀察及比較。于術(shù)后2、3、4、8周對(duì)兩組標(biāo)本進(jìn)行四點(diǎn)彎曲試驗(yàn)比較兩組模型的力學(xué)性質(zhì)。 結(jié)果: 1開(kāi)放截骨模型每只平均造模時(shí)間為17分鐘,造模成功率90%,骨折畸形愈合及不愈合率40%;閉合骨折模型每只平均造模時(shí)間12分鐘,造模成功率85%,未見(jiàn)畸形愈合及不愈合 2術(shù)后2,3,4周X線評(píng)分開(kāi)放組均低于閉合組(p0.05),8周時(shí)開(kāi)放組X線評(píng)分仍較閉合組低,但無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異(p0.05)。 3 HE染色顯示術(shù)后30 min開(kāi)放組截骨面平整,閉合組骨折面呈犬牙交錯(cuò);1周、2周時(shí)開(kāi)放組骨性骨痂不明顯,閉合組已經(jīng)可見(jiàn)明顯的骨性骨痂;3周時(shí)兩組骨性骨痂均增多,但開(kāi)放組骨性骨痂較閉合組小;4周時(shí)開(kāi)放組骨性骨痂仍較大,閉合組骨痂開(kāi)始縮小;8周時(shí)兩組標(biāo)本均骨性愈合,但開(kāi)放組髓腔尚未再通,閉合組髓腔已完全再通。 4四點(diǎn)彎曲試驗(yàn)后所有標(biāo)本均斷裂。各時(shí)間點(diǎn)力學(xué)參數(shù)持續(xù)增高,2,3,4周各時(shí)間點(diǎn)開(kāi)放組參數(shù)均低于閉合組,統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異顯著(p0.05)。8周時(shí)兩組標(biāo)本的力學(xué)參數(shù)差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(p0.015)。 結(jié)論: 1開(kāi)放截骨模型造模時(shí)間長(zhǎng),骨折畸形愈合及不愈合發(fā)生率高。 2開(kāi)放截骨模型影響骨折愈合的夾雜因素較多,近中期骨折愈合明顯滯后 3開(kāi)放截骨模型由于骨折愈合滯后,愈合早期生物力學(xué)指標(biāo)變化趨勢(shì)不明顯,不適合用于近中期骨折愈合的基礎(chǔ)研究
[Abstract]:There are usually two animal models for long bone fracture healing: open osteotomy and closed fracture.The open osteotomy model has the advantages of flat fracture surface, arbitrary control of fracture line and good repeatability of fracture model. However, there are more reports that the contact area of fracture end of open osteotomy model is small, the fracture is unstable and easy to shift.The injury to the surrounding tissues and the thermal injury to the bone tissue during the operation process are very important, so the influencing factors of fracture healing are increased.The closed fracture model has less soft tissue injury, interlaced fracture ends, stable fracture and less external interference factors, which can reflect the healing process of fracture.At present, the closed fracture model is generally used in the international research on fracture healing in the near and middle period, but open osteotomy model is still widely used in our country.Therefore, we compare the two models to provide a reference for the selection of models for future basic research on fracture healing.Objective: to compare the models of open osteotomy and closed fracture of femur and the healing process of fracture in rats, and compare the advantages and disadvantages of the two models, so as to provide reference for the selection of models for basic research of fracture healing in the future.Methods:1 comparison of the two models: 40 male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into open group and closed group.Open osteotomy resulted in transverse fracture of the middle femur and retrograde Kirschner pin fixation in the open group, and closed fracture in the middle femur with model stent after retrograde Kirschner needle fixation in the closed group.The average modeling time, the success rate and the X ray of fracture healing were compared between the two groups.2 comparison of fracture healing in two models: 80 male SD rats were randomly divided into open group and closed group.The surgical procedure is the same as above.X-ray films and HE staining were taken at 30 minutes after operation and observed and compared between the two groups.The mechanical properties of the two groups were compared by four point bending test at 2: 3 and 4 ~ 4 weeks postoperatively.Results:1 the average time of open osteotomy was 17 minutes, the successful rate of modeling was 90, the rate of fracture malunion and nonunion was 40, the average time of each model was 12 minutes, the success rate of modeling was 85, and there was no malunion and nonunion2the X-ray score of the open group was lower than that of the closed group at 8 weeks after operation, but there was no statistical difference between the open group and the closed group.3HE staining showed that the osteotomy surface of the open group was flat at 30 min after operation, the fracture surface of the closed group was not obvious at 1 week and 2 weeks after operation, and the osseous callus of the closed group was obviously increased after 3 weeks.However, the bone callus of the open group was still larger than that of the closed group at 4 weeks. The callus of the closed group began to shrink and the bone healed in both groups at 8 weeks, but the medullary cavity in the open group was not re-opened, and the medullary cavity in the closed group was completely recanalized.4 all specimens were fractured after four point bending test.The mechanical parameters of the open group were significantly lower than that of the closed group at 4 weeks after 4 weeks. There was no significant difference in the mechanical parameters between the two groups at the week of p 0.05.8. There was no significant difference in the mechanical parameters between the two groups (p 0.015).Conclusion:1 the open osteotomy model was made for a long time, and the rate of fracture malunion and nonunion was high.(2) the open osteotomy model has many factors affecting fracture healing, but the fracture healing is obviously delayed in the near and middle period.3Open osteotomy model has no obvious change trend of biomechanical indexes in early healing due to the lag of fracture healing, so it is not suitable for basic research of fracture healing in the near and middle period.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘇州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2008
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：R683;R-332

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 劉毓順，，周金水，林葆凱，蔡崇旺;接骨散對(duì)家兔骨折的實(shí)驗(yàn)研究[J];福建中醫(yī)藥;1994年03期

2 周曉中;董啟榕;張健;;大鼠股骨閉合骨折模型的制作[J];東南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(醫(yī)學(xué)版);2007年01期

3 費(fèi)琴明,陳統(tǒng)一,陳中偉;大鼠脛骨標(biāo)準(zhǔn)骨折模型的制作[J];上海實(shí)驗(yàn)動(dòng)物科學(xué);2002年01期

4 梁春雨;張柳;趙文國(guó);程愛(ài)國(guó);;前交叉韌帶切斷對(duì)卵巢切除大鼠股骨骨折愈合的影響[J];中國(guó)骨質(zhì)疏松雜志;2005年02期

5 徐少文,喻任,趙光鋒,王建衛(wèi);去勢(shì)對(duì)骨折早期愈合過(guò)程的影響[J];中華骨科雜志;2003年07期

6 曾忠華,余黎,肖璇,曾俊;血管內(nèi)皮生長(zhǎng)因子在骨折修復(fù)過(guò)程中血管生成的促進(jìn)作用[J];中華實(shí)驗(yàn)外科雜志;2005年06期

本文編號(hào)：1732837