This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

KEENE O. HALDEMAN, M.D.

Arch Surg. 1932;24(3):440-450.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The rôle played by the various components of bone in the healing of fractures has been the subject of many researches since the work of Duhamel¹ in 1741. It is, of course, one of great practical importance as well as of theoretical interest. Because of the volume of the literature and the variety of opinions held, a classification of the theories of bone repair is quoted from Bancroft,² who has summarized this subject as follows:

1. The periosteal theory presupposes that the periosteum and endosteum are definite organs for bone formation and repair, and that the bone cells arise from them and from no other source.

2. The osteoblastic theory may be divided into two subtitles.

Type A. This assumes that in bone repair following injury bone cells are liberated from their lacunae and that they reproduce and form new bone.

Type B. This assumes that following injury . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
SAN FRANCISCO

From the Department of Orthopedic Surgery of the University of California Medical School.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication, July 29, 1931.

Read before the Section on Industrial Medicine and Surgery, at the Sixtieth Annual Session of the California Medical Association, San Francisco, April 28, 1931.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?