Time for treating bone fracture using rhBMP-2: a randomised placebo controlled mouse fracture trial.

Although the mechanisms of osteoinduction by bone morphogenic proteins (BMPs) are increasingly understood, the most appropriate time to administer BMPs exogenously is yet to be clarified.The purpose of this study was to investigate when BMP may be administered to a fracture arena to maximise the enhancement of healing.Forty mice with externally fixed left femoral fractures were randomised into four groups: Group I, the control group was given a placebo of 30 ll saline at day 0; Groups II, III and IV were given 30 ll saline plus 2.5 lg rhBMP-2, at post-operative days 0, 4 or 8, respectively.Sequential radiographs were taken at days 0, 8, 16.On day 22 the mice were sacrificed and both femora were harvested for biomechanical assessment in 3-point bending and histological evaluation.Radiographic analysis indicated that healing of fractures in Groups II and III was significantly greater (p <0.05) than those in Groups I and IV, at both 16 and 22 days post-fracture. The highest median bone mineral content at the fracture site was evidenced in Group III and II.Furthermore, Group III also had the highest relative ultimate load values, followed by Groups II, IV and I.Greater percentage peak loads were observed between Group I and both Groups II and III (p <0.05). Histological examination confirmed that at 22 days post-fracture, only fractures in Groups II and III had united with woven bone, and Groups I and IV still had considerable amounts of fibrous tissue and cartilage at the fracture gap.Data presented herein indicates that there is a time after fracture when rhBMP administration is most effective, and this may be at the time of surgery as well as in the early fracture healing phases.

Cancellous bone repair using bovine trabecular bone matrix particulates.

At 5 and 15 weeks post-surgery, biomechanical and histological analyses of cancellous bone defects filled with the bovine trabecular bone matrix (BBM) and hydroxyapatite (Hap) particulates of dimensions 106–150 µm were investigated. It was observed that at 5 weeks post-surgery the stiffness properties of the BBM filled defects were significantly higher than those observed in the Hap filled defects (p

An Immunohistochemical Study of the Distribution of the Measles Virus Receptors, CD46 and SLAM, In Normal Human Tissues and Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis

We have compared the expression of the known measles virus (MV) receptors, membrane cofactor protein (CD46) and the signaling lymphocyte-activation molecule (SLAM), using immunohistochemistry, in a range of normal peripheral tissues (known to be infected by MV) as well as in normal and subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) brain. To increase our understanding of how these receptors could be utilized by wild-type or vaccine strains in vivo, the results have been considered with regard to the known route of infection and systemic spread of MV. Strong staining for CD46 was observed in endothelial cells lining blood vessels and in epithelial cells and tissue macrophages in a wide range of peripheral tissues, as well as in Langerhans' and squamous cells in the skin. In lymphoid tissues and blood, subsets of cells were positive for SLAM, in comparison to CD46, which stained all nucleated cell types. Strong CD46 staining was observed on cerebral endothelium throughout the brain and also on ependymal cells lining the ventricles and choroid plexus. Comparatively weaker CD46 staining was observed on subsets of neurons and oligodendrocytes. In SSPE brain sections, the areas distant from lesion sites and negative for MV by immunocytochemistry showed the same distribution for CD46 as in normal brain. However, cells in lesions, positive for MV, were negative for CD46. Normal brain showed no staining for SLAM, and in SSPE brain only subsets of leukocytes in inflammatory infiltrates were positive. None of the cell types most commonly infected by MV show detectable expression of SLAM, whereas CD46 is much more widely expressed and could fulfill a receptor function for some wild-type strains. In the case of wild-type stains, which are unable to use CD46, a further as yet unknown receptor(s) would be necessary to fully explain the pathology of MV infection.

Systemic recruitment of osteoblastic cells in fracture healing

We hypothesise that following a bone fracture there is systemic recruitment of bone forming cells to a fracture site. A rabbit ulnar osteotomy model was adapted to trace the movement of osteogenic cells. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells from 41 NZW rabbits were isolated, culture-expanded and fluorescently labelled. The labelled cells were either re-implanted into the fracture gap (Group A); into a vein (Group B); or into a remote tibial bone marrow cavity 48 h after the osteotomy (Group C) or 4 weeks before the osteotomy was established (Group D), and a control group (Group E) had no labelled cells given. To quantify passive leakage of cells to an injury site, inert beads were also co-delivered in Group B. Samples of the fracture callus tissue and various organs were harvested at discrete sacrifice time-points to trace and quantify the labelled cells. At 3 weeks following osteotomy, the number of labelled cells identified in the callus of Group C, was significantly greater than following IV delivery, Group B, and there was no difference in the number of labelled cells in the callus tissues, between Groups C and A, indicating the labelled bone marrow cells were capable of migrating to the fracture sites from the remote bone marrow cavity. Significantly fewer inert beads than labelled cells were identified in Group B callus, suggesting some of the bone-forming cells were actively recruited and selectively chosen to the fracture site, rather than passively leaked into the circulation and to bone injury site. This investigation supports the hypothesis that some osteoblasts involved in fracture healing were systemically mobilised and recruited to the fracture from remote bone marrow sites. © 2005 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.