[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
February 27, 1943


Author Affiliations

Assistant Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Oklahoma University School of Medicine OKLAHOMA CITY

JAMA. 1943;121(9):652-655. doi:10.1001/jama.1943.02840090022007

The osteogenic virtues of the osteoperiosteal graft are unquestioned. This type of graft has been of secondary importance chiefly because it lacks the stabilizing rigidity of the cortical graft. Also, there is less confidence in the thinner graft for fear that it will not provide a preponderance of osteogenic material.

However, it has been found that if the osteoperiosteal graft is compressed firmly to a freshened bed on the ununited fragments, resulting osteogenesis compares favorably with that of a full thickness graft, and the simpler surgical procedure permits its application in situations in which the more extensive bone sawing excavations would be contraindicated.

Phemister and Harkins1 and Delangénière and Lewin2 have described the advantages of the osteoperiosteal graft as a procedure in which they used ligatures and muscle pressure for fixation. The remarkable advances in the use of metallic fixation since the introduction of vitallium and especially hardened