Small animal bone healing models : standards, tips, and pitfalls results of a consensus meeting

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.

A new model to analyze metaphyseal bone healing in mice

Background: Despite the increasing clinical problems with metaphyseal fractures, most experimental studies investigate the healing of diaphyseal fractures. Although the mouse would be the preferable species to study the molecular and genetic aspects of metaphyseal fracture healing, a murine model does not exist yet. Using a special locking plate system, we herein introduce a new model, which allows the analysis of metaphyseal bone healing in mice. Methods: In 24 CD-1 mice the distal metaphysis of the femur was osteotomized. After stabilization with the locking plate, bone repair was analyzed radiologically, biomechanically, and histologically after 2 (n = 12) and 5 wk (n = 12). Additionally, the stiffness of the bone-implant construct was tested biomechanically ex vivo. Results: The torsional stiffness of the bone-implant construct was low compared with nonfractured control femora (0.23 ± 0.1 Nmm/°versus 1.78 ± 0.15 Nmm/°, P < 0.05). The cause of failure was a pullout of the distal screw. At 2 wk after stabilization, radiological analysis showed that most bones were partly bridged. At 5 wk, all bones showed radiological union. Accordingly, biomechanical analyses revealed a significantly higher torsional stiffness after 5 wk compared with that after 2 wk. Successful healing was indicated by a torsional stiffness of 90% of the contralateral control femora. Histological analyses showed new woven bone bridging the osteotomy without external callus formation and in absence of any cartilaginous tissue, indicating intramembranous healing. Conclusion: With the model introduced herein we report, for the first time, successful metaphyseal bone repair in mice. The model may be used to obtain deeper insights into the molecular mechanisms of metaphyseal fracture healing. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

What is a good project manager? Reconceptualizing the “do” : an Aristotelian perspective

In Social Science (Organization Studies, Economics, Management Science, Strategy, International Relations, Political Science…) the quest for addressing the question “what is a good practitioner?” has been around for centuries, with the underlying assumptions that good practitioners should lead organizations to higher levels of performance. Hence to ask “what is a good “captain”?” is not a new question, we should add! (e.g. Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670; Söderlund, 2004, p. 190). This interrogation leads to consider problems such as the relations between dichotomies Theory and Practice, rigor and relevance of research, ways of knowing and knowledge forms. On the one hand we face the “Enlightenment” assumptions underlying modern positivist Social science, grounded in “unity-of-science dream of transforming and reducing all kinds of knowledge to one basic form and level” and cause-effects relationships (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20), and on the other, the postmodern interpretivist proposal, and its “tendency to make all kinds of knowing equivalent” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20). In the project management space, this aims at addressing one of the fundamental problems in the field: projects still do not deliver their expected benefits and promises and therefore the socio-economical good (Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007; Bredillet, 2010, Lalonde et al., 2012). The Cartesian tradition supporting projects research and practice for the last 60 years (Bredillet, 2010, p. 4) has led to the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management, despite the sum of research, development of standards, best & good practices and the related development of project management bodies of knowledge (Packendorff, 1995, p. 319-323; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006, p. 2–6, Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007, p. 436–7; Winter et al., 2006, p. 638). Referring to both Hodgson (2002) and Giddens (1993), we could say that “those who expect a “social-scientific Newton” to revolutionize this young field “are not only waiting for a train that will not arrive, but are in the wrong station altogether” (Hodgson, 2002, p. 809; Giddens, 1993, p. 18). While, in the postmodern stream mainly rooted in the “practice turn” (e.g. Hällgren & Lindahl, 2012), the shift from methodological individualism to social viscosity and the advocated pluralism lead to reinforce the “functional stupidity” (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012, p. 1194) this postmodern stream aims at overcoming. We suggest here that addressing the question “what is a good PM?” requires a philosophy of practice perspective to complement the “usual” philosophy of science perspective. The questioning of the modern Cartesian tradition mirrors a similar one made within Social science (Say, 1964; Koontz, 1961, 1980; Menger, 1985; Warry, 1992; Rothbard, 1997a; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Boisot & McKelvey, 2010), calling for new thinking. In order to get outside the rationalist ‘box’, Toulmin (1990, p. 11), along with Tsoukas & Cummings (1997, p. 655), suggests a possible path, summarizing the thoughts of many authors: “It can cling to the discredited research program of the purely theoretical (i.e. “modern”) philosophy, which will end up by driving it out of business: it can look for new and less exclusively theoretical ways of working, and develop the methods needed for a more practical (“post-modern”) agenda; or it can return to its pre-17th century traditions, and try to recover the lost (“pre-modern”) topics that were side-tracked by Descartes, but can be usefully taken up for the future” (Toulmin, 1990, p. 11). Thus, paradoxically and interestingly, in their quest for the so-called post-modernism, many authors build on “pre-modern” philosophies such as the Aristotelian one (e.g. MacIntyre, 1985, 2007; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Blomquist et al., 2010; Lalonde et al., 2012). It is perhaps because the post-modern stream emphasizes a dialogic process restricted to reliance on voice and textual representation, it limits the meaning of communicative praxis, and weaking the practice because it turns away attention from more fundamental issues associated with problem-definition and knowledge-for-use in action (Tedlock, 1983, p. 332–4; Schrag, 1986, p. 30, 46–7; Warry, 1992, p. 157). Eikeland suggests that the Aristotelian “gnoseology allows for reconsidering and reintegrating ways of knowing: traditional, practical, tacit, emotional, experiential, intuitive, etc., marginalised and considered insufficient by modernist [and post-modernist] thinking” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20—21). By contrast with the modernist one-dimensional thinking and relativist and pluralistic post-modernism, we suggest, in a turn to an Aristotelian pre-modern lens, to re-conceptualise (“re” involving here a “re”-turn to pre-modern thinking) the “do” and to shift the perspective from what a good PM is (philosophy of science lens) to what a good PM does (philosophy of practice lens) (Aristotle, 1926a). As Tsoukas & Cummings put it: “In the Aristotelian tradition to call something good is to make a factual statement. To ask, for example, ’what is a good captain’?’ is not to come up with a list of attributes that good captains share (as modem contingency theorists would have it), but to point out the things that those who are recognized as good captains do.” (Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670) Thus, this conversation offers a dialogue and deliberation about a central question: What does a good project manager do? The conversation is organized around a critic of the underlying assumptions supporting the modern, post-modern and pre-modern relations to ways of knowing, forms of knowledge and “practice”.