Eur J Endocrinol
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


DOI: 10.1530/EJE-06-0598
European Journal of Endocrinology, Vol 156, Issue 3, 341-351
Copyright © 2007 by European Society of Endocrinology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Raschke, M.
Right arrow Articles by Christiansen, J. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Raschke, M.
Right arrow Articles by Christiansen, J. S.

CLINICAL STUDY

Effects of growth hormone in patients with tibial fracture: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Michael Raschke, Michael Højby Rasmussen1, Shunmugam Govender2, David Segal3, Mette Suntum1 and Jens Sandahl Christiansen4

Department of Trauma-, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital of Münster, Münster, Germany, 1 Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark, 2 Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital of Natal, Durban, South Africa, 3 Hadassah Hebrew University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel and 4 Department of Endocrinology and Diabetes, University Hospital of Aarhus, DK-8000 Aarhus, Denmark

(Correspondence should be addressed to J S Christiansen; Email: jsc{at}afdm.au.dk.)

Objective: Investigate whether intervention with GH after tibial fracture enhances fracture healing.

Design: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 406 patients (93 women, 313 men, age: 18–64 years) with tibial fracture.

Methods: Patients were stratified by tibial fracture (open or closed) and allocated to placebo or GH treatment (15, 30 or 60 µg/kg daily, until clinically assessed healing or until 16 weeks post-surgery). Primary outcome was time from surgery until fracture healing and assessment of healing was done centrally and observer blinded. Patients reported for evaluation every 4 weeks until 24 weeks, and at 9 and 12 months.

Results: GH did not accelerate time to healing in the combined group of open and closed fractures. When separately analysing the closed and open fractures, a significant difference in time to healing was observed between treatment groups, exclusively in the closed fractures (P<0.05; subgroup analysis revealed that the 60 µg/kg group was significantly different from placebo). The relative risk of fracture healing for 60 µg/kg versus placebo during the 12 month was: all fractures, 1.16; 95% CI: (0.86; 1.57) (ns); closed fractures, 1.44; 95% CI: (1.01; 2.05; P<0.05); open fractures, 0.75; 95% CI: (0.42; 1.31) (ns). The estimated median number of days before fracture healing in closed fractures was 95 with 60 µg/kg versus 129 with placebo (95% CI: (94; 129) and (94; 249)) corresponding to approximately 26% decrease in healing time.

Conclusions: In the overall group of open and closed tibial fractures, no significant enhancement of fracture healing was observed with GH, whereas in closed tibial fractures, GH accelerated healing significantly.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 European Society of Endocrinology.