Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25408488›Full record

ArticleInternational orthopaedics2015

Bone transplantation and tissue engineering. Part II: bone graft and osteogenesis in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Duhamel, Haller, Ollier and MacEwen).

Philippe Hernigou

Abstract readHistorical Article
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International orthopaedics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Philippe HernigouOrthopaedic Surgery, Hopital Henri Mondor, Creteil, France, philippe.hernigou@wanadoo.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the 18th century, the fate of allografts and their role in bone formation became of interest to many orthopaedic surgeons. A controversy over the science of osteogenesis, the formation of bone, had emerged following the opposing views of Duhamel and von Haller. Duhamel noted that the periosteum had a deep osteogenic layer, which he termed the "cambium layer". However, von Haller claimed the opposite: the periosteum was not osteogenic. In the 19th century, Ollier performed comprehensive studies on the periosteum. Ollier's experiments were published in two volumes entitled "Traite Experimental et clinique de la regeneration des os" in 1867. His conclusion was that transplanted periosteum and bone survived and could become osteogenic under proper conditions. The controversy was furthered by MacEwen who believed, contrary to Duhamel and Ollier, that the periosteum had no osteogenetic power and was purely a limiting membrane giving direction to bone growth but taking no active part in it. This manuscript describes this period of controversies about the osteogenesis of the transplanted bone, marrow and periosteum that would eventually die or not and be replaced by surrounding tissue or be active for osteogenesis. Whether bone grafts are a form of passive scaffolding or active in osteogenesis was the main question about auto and allografts in the 18th and 19th centuries. In response to this challenge, many papers were written to defend each side of the argument.

Indexed as

AnimalsBone TransplantationHistory, 17th CenturyHistory, 18th CenturyHistory, 19th CenturyHumansOsteogenesisPeriosteumTissue EngineeringTransplantation, Homologous

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.