Literature DB >> 16594390

In vitro biomechanical comparison of limited contat dynamic compression plate and locking compression plate.

A Z Aguila1, J M Manos, A S Orlansky, R J Todhunter, E J Trotter, M C H Van der Meulen.   

Abstract

The locking compression plate (LCP) supports biological osteosynthesis by functioning as an internal fixator, rather than as a full or limited contact bone plate which must be adequately contoured and affixed directly to the bone for stable internal fixation of the fracture. In order to help justify the use of the LCP in our veterinary patients, in vitro biomechanical testing was performed comparing the LCP to the conventional limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) in canine femurs. We hypothesized that the LCP construct would be at least as stiff under bending and torsional loads as the LC-DCP. The LCP and LC-DCP were applied over a 20-mm osteotomy gap to contralateroal bones within each pair of 14 femora. Non-destructive four-point bending and torsion, and cyclical testing in torsion were performed. The constructs were then loaded to failure in torsion. In medial-lateral and lateral-medial structural bending, significant differences were not found between the LCP and LC-DCP, however, at the gap, the LCP construct was stiffer than the LC-DCP in lateral-medial bending. Significant differences in behaviour over time were not noted between the plate designs during cyclical testing. When loading the constructs to failure in internal rotation, the LC-DCP failed at a significantly lower twist angle (P = .0024) than the LCP. Based on the similar performance with loading, the locking compression plate is a good alternative implant for unstable diaphyseal femoral fracture repair in dogs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16594390

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol        ISSN: 0932-0814            Impact factor:   1.358


  7 in total

1.  What's new in orthopedics? Part 1.

Authors:  Greg Harasen
Journal:  Can Vet J       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 1.008

2.  Mechanical evaluation of fourth-generation composite femur hybrid locking plate constructs.

Authors:  Tarun Goswami; Vinit Patel; David J Dalstrom; Michael J Prayson
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2011-07-17       Impact factor: 3.896

3.  Biomechanical analysis of 3 fixation techniques in rabbit radius and humerus bones.

Authors:  Meghan L Davolt; Ella Davis; Brynn McCleery; Garrett Davis
Journal:  Can Vet J       Date:  2022-05       Impact factor: 1.075

4.  Comparison of the effect on bone healing process of different implants used in minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis: limited contact dynamic compression plate versus locking compression plate.

Authors:  Zichao Xue; Haitao Xu; Haoliang Ding; Hui Qin; Zhiquan An
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-11-25       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  In vitro biomechanical testing of the 3.5 mm LCP in torsion: a comparison of unicortical locking to bicortical nonlocking screws placed nearest the fracture gap.

Authors:  Alex A Padron; John R Owen; Jennifer S Wayne; Sevima A Aktay; Roy F Barnes
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2017-12-27

6.  In-vitro comparison of LC-DCP- and LCP-constructs in the femur of newborn calves - a pilot study.

Authors:  Mona Hoerdemann; Philippe Gédet; Steven J Ferguson; Carola Sauter-Louis; Karl Nuss
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 2.741

7.  Comparison between Areas of Bone Visualization Using Radiolucent Hybrid Fixator Frames and Graphically Simulated Metallic Frames: An Ex Vivo Study.

Authors:  Andrea Bonardi; Gian Luca Rovesti; Filippo Maria Martini; Francesco Dondi; Davide Benedini; Fabio Barbieri
Journal:  Vet Sci       Date:  2022-03-07
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.