Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 131, Issue 1, pp 121–129 | Cite as

A 5-mm femoral defect in female but not in male rats leads to a reproducible atrophic non-union

  • Manav Mehta
  • Hanna Schell
  • Carolin Schwarz
  • Anja Peters
  • Katharina Schmidt-Bleek
  • Agnes Ellinghaus
  • Hermann J. Bail
  • Georg N. Duda
  • Jasmin LienauEmail author
Basic Science



The objectives of this study were to (1) establish a reproducible atrophic non-union model in rats by creation of a segmental femoral bone defect that allows, (2) in-depth characterization of impaired healing, and (3) contrast its healing patterns to the normal course. Hypothesis was that a 5-mm bone defect in male rats would deviate from uneventful healing patterns and result in an atrophic non-union.

Materials and methods

A femoral osteotomy was performed in two groups of 12-week-old male rats (1 vs. 5 mm gap) stabilized with an external fixator. Bone healing in these models was evaluated by radiology, biomechanics, and histology at 6 or 8 weeks. The evaluation of the 5-mm group revealed in some cases a delayed rather than a non-union, and therefore, a group of female counterparts was included.


The creation of a 5-mm defect in female rats resulted in a reproducible atrophic non-union characterized by sealing of the medullary canal, lack of cartilage formation, and negligible mechanical properties of the callus. In both gap size models, the male subjects showed advanced healing compared to females.

Discussion and conclusion

This study showed that even under uneventful healing conditions in terms of age and bone defect size, there is a sex-specific advanced healing in male compared to female subjects. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, only the creation of a 5-mm segmental femoral defect in female rats led to a reproducible atrophic non-union. It has been shown that an atrophic non-union exhibits different healing patterns compared to uneventful healing. A total lack of endochondral bone formation, soft tissue prolapse into the defect, and bony closure of the medullary cavity have been shown to occur in the non-union model.


Femoral bone defect Rat animal model Non-union Sex Healing patterns 



This study was supported by a grant of the German Research Foundation (DFG SFB 760) and partially by the Berlin-Brandenburg Center for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT). The authors would like to thank Mario Thiele, Camilla Bergmann, Nicole Lautenschläger, and Dag Wulsten for excellent technical assistance.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Rodriguez-Merchan EC, Forriol F (2004) Nonunion: general principles and experimental data. Clin Orthop Relat Res 419:4–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tseng SS, Lee MA, Reddi AH (2008) Nonunions and the potential of stem cells in fracture-healing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(Suppl 1):92–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Damien CJ, Parsons JR (1991) Bone graft and bone graft substitutes: a review of current technology and applications. J Appl Biomater 2:187–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hannouche D, Petite H, Sedel L (2001) Current trends in the enhancement of fracture healing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:157–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeCoster TA, Gehlert RJ, Mikola EA, Pirela-Cruz MA (2004) Management of posttraumatic segmental bone defects. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 12:28–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oest ME, Dupont KM, Kong HJ, Mooney DJ, Guldberg RE (2007) Quantitative assessment of scaffold and growth factor-mediated repair of critically sized bone defects. J Orthop Res 25:941–950CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gardner TN, Stoll T, Marks L, Mishra S, Knothe Tate M (2000) The influence of mechanical stimulus on the pattern of tissue differentiation in a long bone fracture—an FEM study. J Biomech 33:415–425CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schaden W, Fischer A, Sailler A (2001) Extracorporeal shock wave therapy of nonunion or delayed osseous union. Clin Orthop Relat Res 387:90–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Claes L, Blakytny R, Gockelmann M, Schoen M, Ignatius A, Willie B (2009) Early dynamization by reduced fixation stiffness does not improve fracture healing in a rat femoral osteotomy model. J Orthop Res 27:22–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greiner SH, Wildemann B, Back DA, Alidoust M, Schwabe P, Haas NP, Schmidmaier G (2008) Local application of zoledronic acid incorporated in a poly(d,l-lactide)-coated implant accelerates fracture healing in rats. Acta Orthop 79:717–725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nakajima F, Nakajima A, Ogasawara A, Moriya H, Yamazaki M (2007) Effects of a single percutaneous injection of basic fibroblast growth factor on the healing of a closed femoral shaft fracture in the rat. Calcif Tissue Int 81:132–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parker MJ, Raghavan R, Gurusamy K (2007) Incidence of fracture-healing complications after femoral neck fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 458:175–179PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Strube P, Mehta M, Baerenwaldt A, Trippens J, Wilson CJ, Ode A, Perka C, Duda GN, Kasper G (2009) Sex-specific compromised bone healing in female rats might be associated with a decrease in mesenchymal stem cell quantity. Bone 45:1065–1072CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Strube P, Mehta M, Putzier M, Matziolis G, Perka C, Duda GN (2008) A new device to control mechanical environment in bone defect healing in rats. J Biomech 41:2696–2702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaspar K, Schell H, Toben D, Matziolis G, Bail HJ (2007) An easily reproducible and biomechanically standardized model to investigate bone healing in rats, using external fixation. Biomed Tech 52:383–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmidmaier G, Wildemann B, Melis B, Krummrey G, Einhorn TA, Haas N, Raschke M (2004) Development and characterization of a standard closed tibial fracture model in the rat. Eur J Trauma 30:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Runkel M, Rommens PM (2000) pseudoarthrosis. Unfallchirurg 103:51–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Strube P, Sentuerk U, Riha T, Kaspar K, Mueller M, Kasper G, Matziolis G, Duda GN, Perka C (2008) Influence of age and mechanical stability on bone defect healing: age reverses mechanical effects. Bone 42:758–764CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Movat HZ (1955) Demonstration of all connective tissue elements in a single section: pentachrome stains. AMA Arch Pathol 60:289–295PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Junqueira LC, Bignolas G, Brentani RR (1979) Picrosirius staining plus polarization microscopy, a specific method for collagen detection in tissue sections. Histochem J 11:447–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frolke JP, Patka P (2007) Definition and classification of fracture non-unions. Injury 38(Suppl 2):S19–S22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marsh D (1998) Concepts of fracture union, delayed union, and nonunion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 355(Suppl):S22–S30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Megas P (2005) Classification of non-union. Injury 36(Suppl 4):S30–S37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Garcia P, Holstein JH, Maier S, Schaumloffel H, Al-Marrawi F, Hannig M, Pohlemann T, Menger MD (2008) Development of a reliable non-union model in mice. J Surg Res 147:84–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manav Mehta
    • 1
  • Hanna Schell
    • 1
    • 2
  • Carolin Schwarz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anja Peters
    • 1
    • 2
  • Katharina Schmidt-Bleek
    • 1
  • Agnes Ellinghaus
    • 1
  • Hermann J. Bail
    • 3
  • Georg N. Duda
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jasmin Lienau
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Julius Wolff Institute and Center for Musculoskeletal SurgeryCharité - Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Berlin-Brandenburg Center for Regenerative TherapiesCharité - Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Klinik für Unfall- und Orthopädische Chirurgie, Klinikum NürnbergNurembergGermany

Personalised recommendations