ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Comprehensive validation of a custom three-point bending system for standardized diabetic fracture models in rats.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiabetes mellitus (DM) significantly impairs fracture healing, necessitating reliable animal models to study diabetic fracture repair mechanisms and therapeutic interventions. This study aimed to develop and comprehensively validate a standardized three-point bending system for inducing precise, reproducible mid-shaft transverse femoral fractures in rats, addressing existing methodological gaps of insufficient reproducibility and detailed calibration in previous models.
methodsA custom-designed three-point bending fracture induction system was developed using AutoCAD software based on the original principle introduced by Einhorn et al. (1984). After manufacturing and calibration, the system was validated first using 22 cadaveric rat femurs and subsequently applied to live rats (n = 44), including diabetic (streptozotocin-induced, n = 22) and non-diabetic animals (n = 22). Fracture induction reproducibility was assessed through radiographic, histologic and mechanic analysis. Additionally, statistical analysis was conducted using GraphPad Prism 9 software. Coefficients of variation (CV) for fracture-healing parameters (callus diameter, calcification ratio, maximum bending force at re-fracture) were calculated and compared statistically with similar parameters from previously published rat femoral fracture studies.
resultsCadaveric validation confirmed that the optimal blade travel distance, set as half the femoral diameter, consistently produced standardized transverse fractures without comminution. A significant correlation between body weight and femoral diameter (Femoral diameter = 1.0276 ln [Body weight] - 1.349) allowed accurate preoperative determination of optimal blade travel distance. Live animal testing demonstrated consistent fracture patterns, stable intramedullary pin fixation, and no complications during surgical procedures. Statistical analysis revealed significantly lower coefficients of variation for healing parameters in this study compared to previously published models (p < 0.05). Histological analysis indicated the fracture type was transverse. Callus was found around fracture site.
conclusionOur validated three-point bending system significantly enhances reproducibility, consistency, and methodological rigor in animal fracture research. This standardized model provides an ideal foundation for future preclinical studies investigating diabetic fracture healing mechanisms and potential therapeutic interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.