动物造模,胫骨大段骨缺损模型 z-bio 2021-05-31 336

　　OBJECTIVE: Based on the Masquelet induced membrane technology, select a better model comparing internal fixation plates, intramedullary nails and external fixation methods to establish a rat tibial segmental bone defect (MTBD) model and the characteristics of induced membrane formation.

　　Method: 60 10-week-old SPF male SD rats were randomly divided into 3 groups: internal fixation plate group (IFP), intramedullary needle group (IMP), circular external fixation group (CEF)? The 4 mm bone defect model was constructed on the middle part of the lateral tibia on the right side A. The model was fixed with a self-made 6-hole stainless steel plate, a 1mm diameter Kirschner wire, and a self-made round external fixator, and the duration of swelling was recorded; X-ray examination observed bone cement? Fixation The stability of the device; the tissue morphological and structural characteristics of the induced membrane HE staining? Modeling time, blood loss, model success rate, IMP group and CEF group were significantly better than IFP group (P0.05)? ③1 case of screw loosening in IFP group , 3 cases of bone cement loosening, 1 case in CEF group. The bone cement in the IMP group is loose and well fixed? Infection, 3 cases of steel plate exposure in IFP group and 2 cases of IMP group in CEF group did not have pus? ⑤The thickness of the induced membrane tissue is 460～520 μm, there is no significant difference between the three groups (P→0.05)?

　　Conclusion: All three methods can establish MTBD model very well, but CEF is a better method. Do you want to simulate masket technology to establish MTBD model?