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?

I. DESCRIPTION OF METHOD

WILLIAM T. PEYTON, M.D.; ULYSSES S. ANDERSON, M.D.; CARL W. LAYMON, M.D.

Arch Surg. 1934;29(1):23-28.

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

Some time ago (1929) it was decided to check the results of some experiments in which it had been reported that the rate of healing in bone could be influenced by certain variations in the experiment. Although careful studies have been carried out by different investigators to determine the influence of a certain substance or condition on the healing of bone, the conclusions drawn by these investigators are variable and in some instances in direct conflict. It appears probable that the cause of these conflicting results is due in large part, if not entirely, to the difficulty of estimating the amount of healing which has taken place at any given time after fracture has occurred or has been produced for experimental purposes. Clinically, it is impossible to be certain when a fracture is healed sufficiently to allow resumption of function. For this reason certain minimum limits of time have been . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
MINNEAPOLIS

From the Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota.

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