Pentoxifylline and electromagnetic field improved bone fracture healing in rats

Figures & data

Figure 1 A photographic image of the surgical procedure showing the gap between the bone segments after fixing the microplate.

Table 1 Statistical analysis of bone healing at Day 21 and Day 30

Study groups	Group A	Group B	Group C	Group D
Day 21 (n=10)	6.30±1.059	7.20±0.632	7.60±1.075	5.40±1.265
P-value		0.009a,*	0.006b,*	0.144c
Day 30 (n=10)	6.50±0.843	7.80±1.317	7.80±0.919	5.90±1.101
P-value		0.038a,*	0.011b,*	0.160c
P-value		0.203d	0.250e	0.622f

Notes:

* Statistically significant between-group difference (P<0.05, Mann–Whitney U-test). Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation.

a Group B compared with group A.

b Group C compared with group A.

c Group D compared with group A.

d Group B compared at Day 21 and Day 30.

e Group C compared at Day 21 and Day 30.

f Group D compared at Day 21 and Day 30.

Figure 2 Comparison of histopathological bone-healing scores among groups according to the Huo scale.

Notes: *Contradictory values; – median value of control 21 group.
Abbreviations: EMF, electromagnetic field; PTX, pentoxifylline; MIX, both EMF and PTX treatment.

Figure 3 Histopathological sample of bone tissue. The sample shows mostly cartilage and a little newly formed, immature bone tissue.

Notes: The sample is stained with hematoxylin and eosin; magnification, 200×.

Figure 4 Histopathological sample of bone tissue. The sample shows mostly immature bone tissue.

Notes: The sample is stained with hematoxylin and eosin; magnification, 200×.

Figure 5 Histopathological sample of bone tissue. The sample is mostly mature bone tissue.

Notes: The sample is stained with hematoxylin and eosin; magnification, 200×.