OBJECTIVE: To compare the failure properties of a 5-hole, 2.7-mm curved acetabular plate (AP) to a 5-hole, 3.5-mm reconstruction plate (RP) when applied to acetabular osteotomies. STUDY DESIGN: Cadaver study. ANIMALS OR SAMPLE POPULATION: Pelves of 8 mature, large-breed dogs. METHODS: A 5-hole, 2.7-mm AP and a 5-hole, 3.5-mm RP were contoured and applied to the dorsal acetabulum of each pelvis. A central acetabular fracture was simulated after plate application by a transverse osteotomy with a fine saw. Each acetabulum was loaded in a weight-bearing direction. A load-deformation curve was produced for each construct, and biomechanical properties of the AP and RP were compared with the Student's paired t-test. A P value of < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: For the AP and RP composite respectively, the mean +/- SD maximum load to failure was 2,721 +/- 632 N and 2,488 +/- 800 N, the stiffness was 4.8 +/- 1.8 N/m and 5.3 +/- 1.9 N/m, and the energy absorbed was 15.1 +/- 5.2 Nm and 16.3 +/- 8.3 Nm. None of these differences was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both fixation techniques provided comparable strength, stiffness, and energy absorbed under the loading conditions of this study. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Because of the relative ease of application, the 2.7-mm curved AP may be the practical choice for acetabular fracture repair in large dogs.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the failure properties of a 5-hole, 2.7-mm curved acetabular plate (AP) to a 5-hole, 3.5-mm reconstruction plate (RP) when applied to acetabular osteotomies. STUDY DESIGN: Cadaver study. ANIMALS OR SAMPLE POPULATION: Pelves of 8 mature, large-breed dogs. METHODS: A 5-hole, 2.7-mm AP and a 5-hole, 3.5-mm RP were contoured and applied to the dorsal acetabulum of each pelvis. A central acetabular fracture was simulated after plate application by a transverse osteotomy with a fine saw. Each acetabulum was loaded in a weight-bearing direction. A load-deformation curve was produced for each construct, and biomechanical properties of the AP and RP were compared with the Student's paired t-test. A P value of < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: For the AP and RP composite respectively, the mean +/- SD maximum load to failure was 2,721 +/- 632 N and 2,488 +/- 800 N, the stiffness was 4.8 +/- 1.8 N/m and 5.3 +/- 1.9 N/m, and the energy absorbed was 15.1 +/- 5.2 Nm and 16.3 +/- 8.3 Nm. None of these differences was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both fixation techniques provided comparable strength, stiffness, and energy absorbed under the loading conditions of this study. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Because of the relative ease of application, the 2.7-mm curved AP may be the practical choice for acetabular fracture repair in large dogs.
Authors: Jonathan A Blakely; James R Butler; Lauren B Priddy; Emily M McCabe; Javier N Avendaño; Steve H Elder; Robert Wills Journal: BMC Vet Res Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 2.741