24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Bone fracture healing in mechanobiological modeling: A review of principles and methods

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Bone fracture is a very common body injury. The healing process is physiologically complex, involving both biological and mechanical aspects. Following a fracture, cell migration, cell/tissue differentiation, tissue synthesis, and cytokine and growth factor release occur, regulated by the mechanical environment. Over the past decade, bone healing simulation and modeling has been employed to understand its details and mechanisms, to investigate specific clinical questions, and to design healing strategies. The goal of this effort is to review the history and the most recent work in bone healing simulations with an emphasis on both biological and mechanical properties. Therefore, we provide a brief review of the biology of bone fracture repair, followed by an outline of the key growth factors and mechanical factors influencing it. We then compare different methodologies of bone healing simulation, including conceptual modeling (qualitative modeling of bone healing to understand the general mechanisms), biological modeling (considering only the biological factors and processes), and mechanobiological modeling (considering both biological aspects and mechanical environment). Finally we evaluate different components and clinical applications of bone healing simulation such as mechanical stimuli, phases of bone healing, and angiogenesis.

          Highlights

          • Bone fracture healing is a series of biological processes, regulated by the mechanical environment and biological factors.

          • Conceptual models of bone fracture healing aim to understand the qualitative process and to formulate its general mechanism.

          • Mechanobiological models consider the effects of both mechanical environment and biological factors.

          • Mechanobiological regulations and mechanical stimuli effects on growth factors can potentially have clinical applications.

          • While important, the inflammatory phase in the bone healing process is not included in mechanobiological simulations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references115

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The biology of fracture healing.

          The biology of fracture healing is a complex biological process that follows specific regenerative patterns and involves changes in the expression of several thousand genes. Although there is still much to be learned to fully comprehend the pathways of bone regeneration, the over-all pathways of both the anatomical and biochemical events have been thoroughly investigated. These efforts have provided a general understanding of how fracture healing occurs. Following the initial trauma, bone heals by either direct intramembranous or indirect fracture healing, which consists of both intramembranous and endochondral bone formation. The most common pathway is indirect healing, since direct bone healing requires an anatomical reduction and rigidly stable conditions, commonly only obtained by open reduction and internal fixation. However, when such conditions are achieved, the direct healing cascade allows the bone structure to immediately regenerate anatomical lamellar bone and the Haversian systems without any remodelling steps necessary. In all other non-stable conditions, bone healing follows a specific biological pathway. It involves an acute inflammatory response including the production and release of several important molecules, and the recruitment of mesenchymal stem cells in order to generate a primary cartilaginous callus. This primary callus later undergoes revascularisation and calcification, and is finally remodelled to fully restore a normal bone structure. In this article we summarise the basic biology of fracture healing. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Fracture healing under healthy and inflammatory conditions.

            Optimal fracture treatment requires knowledge of the complex physiological process of bone healing. The course of bone healing is mainly influenced by fracture fixation stability (biomechanics) and the blood supply to the healing site (revascularization after trauma). The repair process proceeds via a characteristic sequence of events, described as the inflammatory, repair and remodeling phases. An inflammatory reaction involving immune cells and molecular factors is activated immediately in response to tissue damage and is thought to initiate the repair cascade. Immune cells also have a major role in the repair phase, exhibiting important crosstalk with bone cells. After bony bridging of the fragments, a slow remodeling process eventually leads to the reconstitution of the original bone structure. Systemic inflammation, as observed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes mellitus, multiple trauma or sepsis, can increase fracture healing time and the rate of complications, including non-unions. In addition, evidence suggests that insufficient biomechanical conditions within the fracture zone can influence early local inflammation and impair bone healing. In this Review, we discuss the main factors that influence fracture healing, with particular emphasis on the role of inflammation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Bone "mass" and the "mechanostat": a proposal.

              H. Frost (1987)
              The observed fit of bone mass to a healthy animal's typical mechanical usage indicates some mechanism or mechanisms monitor that usage and control the three longitudinal growth, bone modeling, and BMU-based remodeling activities that directly determine bone mass. That mechanism could be named a mechanostat. Accumulated evidence suggests it includes the bone itself, plus mechanisms that transform its mechanical usage into appropriate signals, plus other mechanisms that detect those signals and then direct the above three biologic activities. In vivo studies have shown that bone strains in or above the 1500-3000 microstrain range cause bone modelling to increase cortical bone mass, while strains below the 100-300 microstrain range release BMU-based remodeling which then removes existing cortical-endosteal and trabecular bone. That arrangement provides a dual system in which bone modeling would adapt bone mass to gross overloading, while BMU-based remodeling would adapt bone mass to gross underloading, and the above strain ranges would be the approximate "setpoints" of those responses. The anatomical distribution of those mechanical usage effects are well known. If circulating agents or disease changed the effective setpoints of those responses their bone mass effects should copy the anatomical distribution of the mechanical usage effects. That seems to be the case for many agents and diseases, and several examples are discussed, including postmenopausal osteoporosis, fluoride effects, bone loss in orbit, and osteogenesis imperfecta. The mechanostat proposal is a seminal idea which fits diverse evidence but it requires critique and experimental study.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Bone Rep
                Bone Rep
                Bone Reports
                Elsevier
                2352-1872
                16 March 2017
                June 2017
                16 March 2017
                : 6
                : 87-100
                Affiliations
                [a ]Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
                [b ]Carl J. Shapiro Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
                [c ]Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, 330 Brookline Avenue, RN115, Boston, MA 02215, United States.Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies330 Brookline Avenue, RN115BostonMA02215United States anazaria@ 123456bidmc.harvard.edu
                [1]

                These two authors have contributed equally as senior authors.

                Article
                S2352-1872(17)30012-8
                10.1016/j.bonr.2017.03.002
                5365304
                28377988
                932a0707-7803-422b-850c-401bc90a33f2
                © 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 9 November 2016
                : 15 February 2017
                : 15 March 2017
                Categories
                Article

                bone fracture healing,biological modeling,mechanobiological modeling,mechanical stimuli,growth factors,callus,hematoma,angiogenesis,finite element,mathematical modeling,computational modeling

                Comments

                Comment on this article