Advances in Orthopedics

Advances in Orthopedics / 2015 / Article

Clinical Study | Open Access

Volume 2015 |Article ID 912790 | 8 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/912790

The Accordion Maneuver: A Noninvasive Strategy for Absent or Delayed Callus Formation in Cases of Limb Lengthening

Academic Editor: Robert F. Ostrum
Received19 Jun 2015
Accepted27 Sep 2015
Published19 Oct 2015

Abstract

The distraction osteogenesis (DO) technique has been used worldwide to treat many orthopaedic conditions. Although successful, absent or delayed callus formation in the distraction gap can lead to significant morbidities. An alternate cycle of distraction-compression (accordion maneuver) is one approach to accelerate bone regeneration. The primary aim of our study is to report our experience with the accordion maneuver during DO and to provide a detailed description of this technique, as performed in our center. The secondary aim is to present a review of the literature regarding the use of accordion maneuver. We reviewed the database of all patients undergoing limb lengthening from the year of 1997 to 2012. Four patients (6.15%) out of 65 showed poor bone regenerate in their tibiae and therefore accordion maneuver was applied for a mean of 6.75 weeks. Of these, three patients have had successful outcome with this technique. The literature showed that this technique is successful approach to trigger bone healing. However, details of how and when to apply this combination of distraction-compression forces were lacking. In conclusion, the accordion technique is safe noninvasive approach to promote bone formation, thus avoiding more invasive surgical procedures in cases of poor callus formation in limb lengthening.

1. Introduction

Distraction osteogenesis (DO) is a surgical technique used worldwide to treat a broad variety of musculoskeletal and craniofacial conditions, including correction of angular deformities or management of bone defects secondary to infection, trauma, or tumor via limb lengthening or segmental bone transport [1, 2]. This technique was popularized by Ilizarov in the early 1950s who demonstrated that when controlled gradual distraction is applied to the two ends of a bone following a low energy osteotomy, new bone will form in the distracted gap [2]. Its principle is based on the intrinsic capacity of the bone to regenerate under a controlled mechanical environment and is considered the best type of in vivo bone tissue engineering technique [3]. Both the rate and rhythm of distraction are vital to the quality of the regenerate bone.

Although DO is associated with satisfactory outcomes in most cases, absent or delayed callus formation in the distraction gap may occur. This could lead to significant morbidities, as the fixator needs to be kept in place for an extended period of time until the bone is completely consolidated. Consequently, unfavorable psychological impact, increased pin tract infections, persistent pain, and increased risk of osteopenia might be encountered [46]. In some cases, subsequent surgical interventions might be required [1, 4, 6]. Numerous techniques have been described in the management of poor regenerate in cases of DO, including systemic administration of pharmaceutical agents such as bisphosphonates, local exogenous administration of growth factors (GFs) such as BMPs, bone marrow cells (BMC), and the use of externally applied low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPU) and pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) [3, 710].

There are several modalities where the use of compressive forces in the context of DO could be used in order to accelerate bone formation in the distracted gap, and these include early and increasing weight bearing on the operated limb, dynamization of the fixator, overdistraction, and then shortening and alternating cycles of distraction and compression [1113]. This last technique—the accordion maneuver—has originally been described by Ilizarov in order accelerate bone regeneration in DO [2]. However, despite several reports in the English literature on the successful use of this technique in the management of poor regenerate, they are mostly anecdotal without a detailed description of this maneuver [1423].

The aim of this study is to report our experience with the accordion maneuver in a small series of cases with absent or delayed bone formation during DO and to provide a detailed description of this technique, as performed in our center. We also present a review of the literature regarding the use of alternating cycles of distraction and compression in cases of DO, nonunions, and fractures in both human and animal studies.

2. Patients and Methods

After approval from our local institutional review board, we retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent straight lower limb lengthening at our institution between 1997 and 2012. The medical records of 65 patients (forty-one males and twenty-four females, M : F = 1.7 : 1) who underwent 72 interventions (35 on right side, 37 on left side), in which 72 bone segments were lengthened (44 femora and 28 tibiae), were reviewed. Of these 4 patients underwent the accordion technique. The demographic data, clinical course and imaging information, diagnosis, surgery, lengthening details, and complications were all collected from the medical record system. In all patients, a low energy osteotomy was performed by creating multiple small drill holes at the site of osteotomy followed by completion of the osteotomy with an osteotome. Immediate weight bearing as tolerated was initiated in all patients with intense physiotherapy.

The specific indication for using the accordion maneuver was an absent or delayed callus formation in the distraction gap, judged radiographically. The accordion maneuver consisted in alternating distraction with compression as follows: distraction (0.25 mm) in the morning and then compression (0.25 mm) in the afternoon, followed by distraction (0.25 mm) in the evening, resulting in an overall daily lengthening of 0.25 mm.

3. Results

The decision to apply the accordion maneuver was taken during initial distraction when imaging has shown absent or significantly delayed callus formation in the distraction gap. This was the case of tibiae in four patients (6.15%) of the 65 investigated. Their mean age was 16.5 years (range, 10 to 20 years). After lengthening initiation, their X-rays showed an absent or very timid bone regenerate in the distraction gap (Figure 1(a)). In these four cases, the accordion maneuver was applied at a mean of 4.5 weeks after surgery (range, 3–7 weeks), which corresponds to a mean of 3.62 weeks (range, 2–6 weeks) after initiation of the distraction phase. The accordion maneuver was carried out on a daily basis, alternating distraction with compression three times per day, for an average of 6.75 weeks, as previously described. The total distraction period (the routine distraction period + the accordion maneuver period) was of an average of 12.5 weeks (range, 11–14 weeks) to obtain a mean lengthening of 3.92 cm (range 3–5 cm). The residual limb length discrepancy was on average 1.12 cm (range, 0.7–2 cm). A mean healing index of 75.38 days/cm was noted. Details on clinical and accordion maneuver details are provided in Table 1.


DataCase number 1Case number 2Case number 3Case number 4

Age and gender18 y.o., female10 y.o., male20 y.o., male18 y.o., male

DiagnosisBlount diseaseFibular hemimeliaTibial hemimeliaHME1

Indication for surgery, LLDLLD, L < R 6 cmLLD, L < R 5.2 cmLLD, R < L 5 cmLLD, L < R 4 cm

Surgical procedureTibial lengthening with circular Ilizarov Tibial lengthening with circular IlizarovTibial lengthening with circular IlizarovTibial lengthening with circular Ilizarov

ComorbiditiesNoneNoneNoneNone

Start time of accordion maneuver5 weeks after surgery4 weeks after surgery3 weeks after surgery7 weeks after surgery

Lengthening process descriptionLatency period: 4 days
Distraction: 0.25 mm × 4 times (1 mm)/day for 4.5 weeks and then the accordion maneuver2 was initiated and lasted for 7 weeks
Final distraction: 0.25 mm × 2 times (0.5 mm)/day for 2 weeks
Latency period: 6 days
Initial distraction: 0.25 mm × 2 times (0.5 mm)/day for 2 weeks and then
the accordion maneuver was initiated and lasted for 4 weeks
Final distraction: 0.25 mm × 4 times (1 mm)/day for 2 weeks and then 0.25 mm × 2 times (0.5 mm)/day for 4 weeks
Latency period: 8 days
Initial distraction: 0.25 mm distraction × 3 times (0.75 mm)/day for 2 weeks,
and then
the accordion maneuver was initiated and lasted for 9 weeks, stopping the lengthening thereafter
Latency period: 6 days
Initial distraction: 0.25 mm distraction × 2 times (0.5 mm)/day for 6 weeks,
and then
the accordion maneuver was initiated and lasted for 7 weeks, stopping the lengthening thereafter

Total lengthening duration14 weeks12 weeks11 weeks13 weeks

Lengthening achieved5 cm4.4 cm3 cm3.3 cm

Residual LLD31 cm0.8 cm2 cm0.7 cm

Lengthening index19.6 days/cm19.09 days/cm25.66 days/cm27.57 days/cm

Healing index52.8 days/cm54.1 days/cm122.5 days/cm72.12 days/cm

Outcome and complicationsBone regenerate observed at 6 weeks within the accordion. Had transient peroneal nerve palsyBone regenerate observed at 4 weeks within the accordion. Had 5 degrees of knee flexion contracture. 3 weeks after frame removal (9-month post-op), the regenerate was fractured and was nailed, ultimately healedNo bone regenerate formed after the accordion maneuver. Had infection, was successfully treated with antibiotics, and was followed up 7 months later by bone grafting and OP-14. Residual bowing of the tibia. 40 degrees fixed equinus R ankleGood bone regenerate observed at 6 weeks within the accordion course with no complications

CommentsUnderwent concomitant correction of valgusAfter 4 weeks of accordion, continued with 1 mm distraction/day for 2 weeks, had fibular premature fusion, and underwent reosteotomy and then continued distraction for another 4 weeksInfection treated with antibiotics. Absent bone formation after using the accordion maneuverHad correction of valgus. After finishing the accordion, started distraction 1 mm/day, for 2 days had pain, and stopped

HME: Hereditary Multiple Exostoses.
Accordion maneuver: 0.25 mm distraction in AM, followed by 0.25 mm compression early PM, and then distraction of 0.25 mm late PM (0.25 mm of lengthening/day).
LLD: limb length discrepancy.
OP-1: osteogenic protein-1.

Favorable progression of the bone regenerate was noted after an average of 5.3 weeks (range, 4–6 weeks) after starting the accordion maneuver in three out of four patients (Figure 1(b)). These patients continued to have full bone consolidation in the distraction gap. However, in one patient (case number 3), infection has complicated the course and there was absent bone formation after using the accordion maneuver (Figure 2(a)). Antibiotic treatment, additional bone grafting, and administration of bone morphogenetic protein-7 (OP-1) ultimately resulted in bone union for this patient (Figure 2(b)).

4. Discussion

Several host related, local, and iatrogenic causes can lead to poor bone regenerate during DO [8]. These include systemic illness, infection, immunosuppression, poor tissue envelope, exposure to radiation, instability of the external fixator, suboptimal osteotomy technique, and rapid distraction rate [8]. We were unable to identify any of these risk factors in 3 out of the 4 patients with poor regenerate and the application of the accordion maneuver in these 3 patients resulted in successful bone regeneration in the distracted gap, while, in the fourth patient (case number 3), the accordion maneuver failed to stimulate the regenerative process. We believe this is most likely due to the presence of underlying infection. This emphasizes the importance of identifying all risk factors that may lead to a poor regenerate in DO before the use of the accordion technique. However, a firm conclusion can be made when a larger sample size is studied.

A review of the English literature revealed several clinical studies in humans reporting the use of the accordion technique in cases with poor regenerate bone formation in DO, the majority of them with positive outcome. However, the description of the alternate distraction-compression regimen in these studies is anecdotal and lacks details as of when, how, and for how long this technique is applied (Table 2) [1517, 19, 2428].


AuthorsNumber of patientsIndication Successful outcomeTechnique for accordion maneuver

Iacobellis et al. 2010 [26]3Poor regenerate during bone transport 100%
(3/3)
Compression followed by distraction of the transport segment (no details)

Hatzokos et al. 2011 [24]8 Delayed consolidation75%
(6/8)
Accordion technique (no details).

Kawoosa et al. 2003 [25]1 Delayed consolidation100%
(1/1)
Alternate compression and distraction of the regenerate (no details)

El-Mowafi et al. 2005 [27] = ?Delayed consolidation ?Compression and distraction of a moving segment (no details)

El-Sayed et al. 2010 [17]25Absence of callus formation 76%
(19/25)
Distraction-compression technique (no details)

Tsuchiya et al. 1997 [28] = ?Poor regenerate during bone transport ?Compression and distraction of a moving segment (no details)

Vidyadhara and Rao 2007 [15] = ?Poor regenerate callus during bone transport ?Compression and distraction of a moving segment (no details).

Simpson and Kenwright 2000 [16]2Poor callus formation0%
(0/2)
Changes in the dynamics of distraction (no details)

Krishnan et al. 2006 [19]2Poor regenerate during bone transport 100% (2/2)Reported as distraction, discontinued, reversed, and restarted at a reduced rate (0.25 mm/12 h, instead of 0.25 mm/6 h)

The accordion maneuver has also been used clinically to stimulate bone formation in the context of fracture healing. Similar to its reported use in DO, most of these studies also reported positive outcome, however still with poor description of the technique (Table 3) [14, 18, 2931]. Interestingly, only experimental studies performed in animals have provided details of this technique. Mofid et al. showed that daily sequential compression and distraction for 3 weeks during the consolidation phase at rate of 1 mm/day increased significantly the bone formation when compared to the control group in mandibular DO in rabbit model [21]. Claes et al. investigated the effect of temporary distraction and compression on bone regeneration in fracture healing [11]. The authors noted higher bone formation in the treatment group when compared with the control group. On the other hand, Greenwald et al. used a rat mandibular DO model and reported that there were no differences histologically and radiographically between groups of rats with distraction-compression protocol versus a control group with standard DO technique [23]. We could not explain why these negative results were obtained, except that the regimen used by these authors was not an accordion technique with alternating cycles of distraction and compression, but rather 5 days of distraction followed by 2 days of compression. However, taken together, both clinical and experimental studies demonstrated the positive role of accordion maneuver in acceleration of bone regeneration in the context of both fracture healing and DO. However, the rate and rhythm of the accordion technique varied between experimental studies and were not available in the clinical studies; therefore, it is difficult to conclude which accordion regimen gives the best results.


AuthorsNumber of patients IndicationSuccessful outcomeTechnique for distraction-compression

Kulkarni 2004 [29]N/AHypertrophic nonunionN/ADistraction 0.5 mm/day for 20 days, then stopping for the next 20 days, and finally compression

Inan et al. 2005 [30]11Femoral pseudarthrosis100% (11/11)Cyclic compression and distraction at the nonunion site

Madhusudhan et al. 2008 [14]2Tibial nonunion100% (2/2)Compression and distraction (no details)

Laursen et al. 2000 [18]2Tibial nonunions50% (1/2)Alternating distraction (1 week) with compression (1 week), until callus visible on X-ray

Chand et al. 2010 [31]2Nonunion of long bone fractures100% (2/2)Compression and distraction technique (no details)

From a mechanistic approach, it would be interesting to understand why the addition of compressive forces to those of distraction in cases of DO (the accordion technique) may lead to successful stimulation of bone formation in the distracted gap. It is well known that the mechanical environment plays a major role in bone formation (osteogenesis and chondrogenesis) and that bones adapt to the mechanical loads they are subjected to in terms of modeling, remodeling, and regeneration (Wolff’s law) [32]. Interestingly, experimental studies showed that dynamic compression has greater bone remodeling than static compression [33]. One explanation is that the skeleton requires “time off” from mechanical loading as bone cells desensitize promptly from the mechanical stimulation, and resensitization must happen before the cell can transduce any prospective mechanical loads into biochemical signals [34]. In DO, mechanical loads can take the form of compressive, tensile (distraction), or shear forces. Not all these forces have equal effect on bone formation. It has been demonstrated that the application of various types of loads may have different effects on the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells and may ultimately decide the fate of progenitor cells exposed to these loads: osteogenic versus chondrogenic fate. Compressive forces may lead to fibrogenesis, osteogenesis, and intramembranous bone formation, while distraction forces may lead to chondrogenesis and endochondral bone formation (Figure 3) [35].

In the context of standard technique of DO, most of the forces generated during the lengthening process are believed to be tensile forces. The addition of outside compressive forces during the lengthening process has been reported to be beneficial for bone formation, whether in the form of weight bearing, compression after overdistraction, or dynamization of the fixator or as mentioned by the accordion maneuver [2]. All these have been shown to be beneficial for regenerate bone formation in the distracted gap. In the only study that we were able to find, directly comparing the effects of compression versus distraction, Hente et al. observed that the amount of periosteal callus formation was up to 25 times greater on the compression side when compared to the distraction side in an experimental model of tibial fractures, using a specially designed external fixator [36]. This may explain the positive effect of adding “compression” during the accordion maneuver.

At the molecular level, numerous studies have analyzed the expression of various cytokines, growth factors, and other molecules in the context of DO [3, 3739]. However, to the best of our knowledge, no study directly analyzed the molecular changes as a result of application of the accordion technique and compared these changes to standard distraction protocols without compression. Thus, at the molecular level, the mechanism of action of the accordion technique remains largely unknown.

All the above-mentioned studies lead us to believe that the addition of compressive forces in the context of DO could have a positive effect in the stimulation of regenerate bone in the distracted gap. However, how frequent these compressive forces should be applied in order to provide optimal results, for how long, and when during the lengthening process remain unanswered questions.

Our report has some limitations. This is very small retrospective case series with an absence of a control group. However, delayed or absent bone formation is a rare complication during limb lengthening and it will be difficult to study a large cohort of patients with such complication from a single institution. Additionally, although it appears from the literature review that the effect of compression has a major role for bone formation, we were not able to determine whether the slow speed in the distraction rate or the effect of compression has contributed to successful bone formation in our patients. This can be determined by experimental laboratory studies and/or multi-institutional clinical investigations.

In conclusion, we believe that, in our small series, the accordion regimen described in this study may be successful in triggering the osteogenic potential of a poor regenerate, thus avoiding more invasive surgical procedures. The literature showed that the accordion maneuver is a successful approach to trigger bone healing. However, details of how and when to apply this combination of distraction-compression forces were lacking. Further research in the form of multi-institutional clinical as well as experimental studies is needed in order to optimize the use of the accordion technique as a noninvasive and nonpharmaceutical method to stimulate bone formation, not only in the context of DO but also in other bony pathologies with poor bone formation. Finally, our future understanding of mechanotransduction in DO might extend the indications of the accordion maneuver to be used not only in cases of poor regenerate, but also during standard lengthening procedures to accelerate bone regeneration.

Disclosure

None of the authors received payments or services, either directly or indirectly i.e., via his/her institution}, from a third party in support of any aspect of this work. Level of evidence is IV.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that they have not received benefits or funds in support of this study and they have no conflict of interests related to the publication of this paper.

References

  1. J. G. Birch and M. L. Samchukov, “Use of the Ilizarov method to correct lower limb deformities in children and adolescents,” The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 144–154, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  2. G. A. Ilizarov, “Clinical application of the tension-stress effect for limb lengthening,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, no. 250, pp. 8–26, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
  3. A. M. Makhdom and R. C. Hamdy, “The role of growth factors on acceleration of bone regeneration during distraction Osteogenesis,” Tissue Engineering—Part B: Reviews, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 442–453, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. R. J. Velazquez, D. F. Bell, P. F. Armstrong, P. Babyn, and R. Tibshirani, “Complications of use of the Ilizarov technique in the correction of limb deformities in children,” The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery—American Volume, vol. 75, no. 8, pp. 1148–1156, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  5. E. Garcia-Cimbrelo, B. Olsen, M. Ruiz-Yague, N. Fernandez-Baillo, and L. Munuera- Martinez, “Ilizarov technique: results and difficulties,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, no. 283, pp. 116–123, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  6. J. C. Eldridge and D. F. Bell, “Problems with substantial limb lengthening,” Orthopedic Clinics of North America, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 625–631, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  7. J. Aronson, “Experimental and clinical experience with distraction osteogenesis,” Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 473–482, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. S. Sabharwal, “Enhancement of bone formation during distraction osteogenesis: pediatric applications,” Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 101–111, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  9. D. Gebauer and J. Correll, “Pulsed low-intensity ultrasound: a new salvage procedure for delayed unions and nonunions after leg lengthening in children,” Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 750–754, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. K. S. Eyres, M. Saleh, and J. A. Kanis, “Effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields on bone formation and bone loss during limb lengthening,” Bone, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 505–509, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. L. Claes, P. Augat, S. Schorlemmer, C. Konrads, A. Ignatius, and C. Ehrnthaller, “Temporary distraction and compression of a diaphyseal osteotomy accelerates bone healing,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 772–777, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. R. Mora, Nonunion of the Long Bones: Diagnosis and Treatment with Compression-Distraction Techniques, Springer, Milan, Itlay, 2006.
  13. R. C. Hamdy, J. S. Rendon, and M. Tabrizian, “Distraction osteogenesis and its challenges in bone regeneration,” in Bone Regeneration, H. Tal, Ed., chapter 8, pp. 177–204, InTech, Rijeka, Croatia, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. T. R. Madhusudhan, B. Ramesh, K. Manjunath, H. M. Shah, D. C. Sundaresh, and N. Krishnappa, “Outcomes of Ilizarov ring fixation in recalcitrant infected tibial non-unions—a prospective study,” Journal of Trauma Management & Outcomes, vol. 2, no. 1, article 6, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. S. Vidyadhara and S. K. Rao, “A novel approach to juxta-articular aggressive and recurrent giant cell tumours: resection arthrodesis using bone transport over an intramedullary nail,” International Orthopaedics, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 179–184, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. A. H. R. W. Simpson and J. Kenwright, “Fracture after distraction osteogenesis,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery B, vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 659–665, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. M. M. El-Sayed, J. Correll, and K. Pohlig, “Limb sparing reconstructive surgery and Ilizarov lengthening in fibular hemimelia of Achterman-Kalamchi type II patients,” Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics B, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 55–60, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. M. B. Laursen, P. Lass, and K. S. Christensen, “Ilizarov treatment of tibial nonunions results in 16 cases,” Acta Orthopaedica Belgica, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 279–285, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  19. A. Krishnan, C. Pamecha, and J. J. Patwa, “Modified Ilizarov technique for infected nonunion of the femur: the principle of distraction-compression osteogenesis,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 265–272, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  20. S. Mori, M. Akagi, A. Kikuyama, Y. Yasuda, and C. Hamanishi, “Axial shortening during distraction osteogenesis leads to enhanced bone formation in a rabbit model through the HIF-1alpha/vascular endothelial growth factor system,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 653–663, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. M. M. Mofid, N. Inoue, A. Atabey et al., “Callus stimulation in distraction osteogenesis,” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 109, no. 5, pp. 1621–1629, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. E. G. Loboa, T. D. Fang, D. W. Parker et al., “Mechanobiology of mandibular distraction osteogenesis: finite element analyses with a rat model,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 663–670, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. J. A. Greenwald, J. S. Luchs, B. J. Mehrara et al., “‘Pumping the regenerate’: an evaluation of oscillating distraction osteogenesis in the rodent mandible,” Annals of Plastic Surgery, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 516–521, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. I. Hatzokos, S. I. Stavridis, E. Iosifidou, D. Karataglis, and A. Christodoulou, “Autologous bone marrow grafting combined with demineralized bone matrix improves consolidation of docking site after distraction osteogenesis,” The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery—American Volume, vol. 93, no. 7, pp. 671–678, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. A. A. Kawoosa, S. Majid, M. R. Mir, and G. R. Mir, “Results of tibial lengthening by Ilizarov technique,” Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, vol. 37, no. 7, p. 7, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  26. C. Iacobellis, A. Berizzi, and R. Aldegheri, “Bone transport using the Ilizarov method: a review of complications in 100 consecutive cases,” Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 17–22, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. H. El-Mowafi, B. Elalfi, and K. Wasfi, “Functional outcome following treatment of segmental skeletal defects of the forearm bones by Ilizarov application,” Acta Orthopaedica Belgica, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 157–162, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  28. H. Tsuchiya, K. Tomita, K. Minematsu, Y. Mori, N. Asada, and S. Kitano, “Limb salvage using distraction osteogenesis. A classification of the technique,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery B, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 403–411, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. G. S. Kulkarni, “Principles and practice of deformity correction,” Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 191–198, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  30. M. Inan, S. Karaoglu, F. Cilli, C. Y. Turk, and A. Harma, “Treatment of femoral nonunions by using cyclic compression and distraction,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 436, pp. 222–228, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. P. Chand, R. L. Shrestha, B. R. Kc, B. C. Shah, A. Joshi, and B. N. Thapa, “Managing difficult fractures due to Ballistic trauma with Ilizarov ring fixation,” Medical Journal of Shree Birendra Hospital, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. C. Huang and R. Ogawa, “Mechanotransduction in bone repair and regeneration,” The FASEB Journal, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 3625–3632, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. L. K. Saxon, A. G. Robling, I. Alam, and C. H. Turner, “Mechanosensitivity of the rat skeleton decreases after a long period of loading, but is improved with time off,” Bone, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 454–464, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. A. G. Robling, F. M. Hinant, D. B. Burr, and C. H. Turner, “Improved bone structure and strength after long-term mechanical loading is greatest if loading is separated into short bouts,” Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 1545–1554, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. L. R. Amir, V. Everts, and A. L. J. J. Bronckers, “Bone regeneration during distraction osteogenesis,” Odontology, vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 63–75, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. R. Hente, B. Füchtmeier, U. Schlegel, A. Ernstberger, and S. M. Perren, “The influence of cyclic compression and distraction on the healing of experimental tibial fractures,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 709–715, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. L. Tong, S. R. Buchman, M. A. Ignelzi Jr., S. Rhee, and S. A. Goldstein, “Focal adhesion kinase expression during mandibular distraction osteogenesis: evidence for mechanotransduction,” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 211–224, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. S. T. Rhee and S. R. Buchman, “Colocalization of c-Src (pp60src) and bone morphogenetic protein 2/4 expression during mandibular distraction osteogenesis: in vivo evidence of their role within an integrin-mediated mechanotransduction pathway,” Annals of Plastic Surgery, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 207–215, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. D. Lewinson, A. Rachmiel, S. Rihani-Bisharat et al., “Stimulation of Fos- and Jun-related genes during distraction osteogenesis,” Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry, vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 1161–1168, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2015 Asim M. Makhdom et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

3032 Views | 714 Downloads | 10 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19.