[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-432428-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-432428-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","physeal-allograft-transfer-for-physeal-bars-a-safety-and-feasibility-study-in-a-domestic-swine-model","Physeal Allograft Transfer for Physeal Bars - A Safety and Feasibility Study in a Domestic Swine Model","","Premature physeal closure after trauma, cancer, or infection often leads to poor clinical outcomes. This study evaluates safety and feasibility of physeal allograft transfer (PAT) in a large animal model and aims to generate foundational data for future efficacy research. Distal femoral physeal defects were created in nine female domestic swine and treated with PAT, cementation, or bone autograft. After 3 months, viability and imaging showed 93% allograft viability but incomplete repair and disorganized architecture, with no physeal bar formation.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/","Healthcare",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/physeal-allograft-transfer-for-physeal-bars-a-safety-and-feasibility-study-in-a-domestic-swine-model/432428/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/physeal-allograft-transfer-for-physeal-bars-a-safety-and-feasibility-study-in-a-domestic-swine-model/432428.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Jasmine","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-02","2026-09-29",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What clinical problem does the study address?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Premature physeal closure after trauma, cancer, or infection can lead to growth impairment. Current treatments have poor success rates, motivating investigation of new approaches.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How was physeal allograft transfer (PAT) tested in the study?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Nine female domestic swine received distal femur physeal defects treated with PAT from donor pigs, cementation, or bone autograft. Viability was assessed and physes were imaged after 3 months using CT and MRI.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What were the main findings regarding safety and integration?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Physeal allografts showed 93% viability after procurement and preservation, and all animals reached the 3-month endpoint without gross deformations. However, transferred physes demonstrated poor integration and incomplete repair, and tissue architecture was disorganized with no growth plate recapitulation.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},432428,1790963951,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,40,"healthcare",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":107,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":123,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},2336478487870,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","Journal of Orthopaedic Research®  \nRESEARCH ARTICLE   \nPhyseal Allograft Transfer for Physeal Bars: A Safety and Feasibility Study in a Domestic Swine Model  \nJ. V. Korpershoek1,2  | C. Chen1,3,4,5 | C. V. Nagelli1 | K. L. Lydon1 | M. L. Floren6 | D. B. F. Saris1,2 | A. N. Larson1 | T. A. Milbrandt1  \n1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA | 2Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands | 3Department of Orthopedics, Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chia‐yi Christian Hospital, Chia‐yi, Taiwan | 4Department of Orthopedic Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan | 5School of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan | 6Innovation Department, AlloSource, Centennial, CO, USA  \nCorrespondence: J. V. Korpershoek ([j.v.korpershoek-3@umcutrecht.nl](j.v.korpershoek-3@umcutrecht.nl))  \nReceived: 29 May 2025 | Revised: 10 November 2025 | Accepted: 17 December 2025  \nFunding: AlloSource; Mayo Clinic Wendel Foundation  \nKeywords: allograft | growth plate | in vivo | Physis | transfer  \nABSTRACT  \nPremature physeal closure occurs following trauma, cancer, or infection. Current treatments have poor success rates. With recent pediatric donor tissue availability, physeal allograft transfer (PAT) can now be considered. The purpose of this study was to study the safety and feasibility of PAT in a large animal model. The aim of this study is to gather foundational data to inform future studies into the efficacy of PAT. Physeal defects were created in the distal femur of nine female domestic swine and treated with PAT from two male donor pigs, cementation, or bone autograft. Viability was assessed. After 3 months, physes were visualized using CT and MRI. Integration, tissue composition, donor DNA presence, and microscopic appearance were evaluated. Physeal allografts demonstrated 93% viability after procurement and preservation. All animals reached the 3‐months study endpoint without gross deformations. No physeal bars formed in any group. Cystic changes were seen in experimental and control femurs. All groups showed disorganized tissue architecture without growth plate recapitulation. High allografts viability and structural integrity after procurement support the potential of this treatment. Although no gross deformities were found, transferred physes demonstrate poor integration and incomplete repair. The lack of physeal bar formation in the control group limits the reliability of the animal model for studying physeal allograft transfer. Lastly, this study was designed as a feasibility study and lacks power to compare treatment effects statistically. The efficacy of PAT for preventing growth arrest remains undetermined.  \n1 | Introduction  \nThe growth plate, or physis, is a cartilaginous structure located near the ends of long bones that creates bone length and growth until its closure at adolescence. Damage to the physis in pediatric patients can be caused by trauma, tumor growth, or infection [1–3] . If damage results in osseous consolidation from metaphysis to epiphyses, the resulting physeal bar can tether the growth and cause length discrepancies, or angular and  \nrotational deformities [4] . Treatment of physeal bars has been consistent over the last decades, and is dependent on age. Removal of the opposite limb growth plate (epiphysiodesis) or conservative management are preferred treatments for older children with minimal residual growth [5] . In younger patients with substantial growth potential, treatment of physeal bars consists of excision of the bar under direct visualization and interposing methylmethacrylate or fat to prevent further angulation or deformity, while allowing growth [5] . However,  \nThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.  \n© 2026 The Author(s) . Journal ","cbCaih5GjRNF3K0y","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaih5GjRNF3K0y","pdf",3607792,"English","# Abstract\n## Introduction","[{\"question\":\"What clinical problem does the study address?\",\"answer\":\"Premature physeal closure after trauma, cancer, or infection can lead to growth impairment. Current treatments have poor success rates, motivating investigation of new approaches.\"},{\"question\":\"How was physeal allograft transfer (PAT) tested in the study?\",\"answer\":\"Nine female domestic swine received distal femur physeal defects treated with PAT from donor pigs, cementation, or bone autograft. Viability was assessed and physes were imaged after 3 months using CT and MRI.\"},{\"question\":\"What were the main findings regarding safety and integration?\",\"answer\":\"Physeal allografts showed 93% viability after procurement and preservation, and all animals reached the 3-month endpoint without gross deformations. However, transferred physes demonstrated poor integration and incomplete repair, and tissue architecture was disorganized with no growth plate recapitulation.\"}]","Physeal Allograft Transfer for Physeal Bars - A Safety and Feasibility Study in a Domestic Swine Model | PDF",1790659566,25]