Literature DB >> 21738060

Can we trust ex vivo mechanical testing of fresh--frozen cadaveric specimens? The effect of postfreezing delays.

Jacob L Cartner1, Zane M Hartsell, William M Ricci, Paul Tornetta.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Because embalming has been demonstrated to decrease the mechanical integrity of bone, most investigators favor fresh-frozen specimens for biomechanical evaluation. However, little is known about how the integrity of fresh--frozen specimens may change during biomechanical testing or may be affected by standard practices in testing.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate how the time after removal from a freezer may affect the mechanical properties of fresh--frozen diaphyseal bone.
METHODS: Matched pairs of nonosteoporotic fresh--frozen human cadaveric femora were thawed before instrumentation with bicortical screws. Matched femora were reserved for either control or delayed use. Each specimen received standard diaphyseal bicortical screws (six or more in each group). At specified time points, screws were axially pulled out following the guidelines of ASTM F543-07. Test groups were stored in air (21 ± 0.5°C) for 16, 50, or 90 hours. In the control group, screws were pulled out at 16 hours, which corresponds to the minimum elapsed time for specimen thawing, instrumentation, potting, and biomechanical test initiation. This represents the baseline mechanical properties of the fresh--frozen bone at the inception of any biomechanical test. The 90-hour group corresponds to the time needed to cycle a construct 300,000 times at a physiological test frequency of 1 Hz. This corresponds approximately to 2 to 4 months of in vivo loading. A midpoint of 50 hours was also tested, representing approximately 180,000 cycles.
RESULTS: Failure for all specimens occurred as a result of bone failure at the screw-to-bone interface. There was a decrease in screw pullout strength as exposure time in air increased. The 50-hour test group showed a 9% decrease in screw pullout strength as compared with the 16-hour control group (P = 0.81). However, the 90-hour test group showed a 30% decrease in screw pullout strength as compared with the 16-hour control group (P = 0.04).
CONCLUSION: This study indicates that when using fresh-frozen cadaveric bone in biomechanical tests to simulate the orthopaedic clinical setting, specimen exposure time should be considered. The timing of testing should be kept constant between specimens to allow for a proper comparison. Furthermore, for fresh--frozen cadavers, the physical properties of bone may be detrimentally affected in biomechanical testing that exceeds the 50-hour time point after removal from the freezer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21738060     DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e318225b875

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0890-5339            Impact factor:   2.512


  10 in total

1.  Proximal Cadaveric Femur Preparation for Fracture Strength Testing and Quantitative CT-based Finite Element Analysis.

Authors:  Dan Dragomir-Daescu; Asghar Rezaei; Susheil Uthamaraj; Timothy Rossman; James T Bronk; Mark Bolander; Vincent Lambert; Sean McEligot; Rachel Entwistle; Hugo Giambini; Iwona Jasiuk; Michael J Yaszemski; Lichun Lu
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2017-03-11       Impact factor: 1.355

2.  Plating of pilon fractures based on the orientation of the fibular shaft component: A biomechanical study evaluating plate stiffness in a cadaveric fracture model.

Authors:  Gennadiy A Busel; J Tracy Watson
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2017-04-17

3.  The effect of long calcar screws on the primary stability of 3-part, varus impacted proximal humeral fractures compared to short calcar screws: a real fracture simulation study.

Authors:  Nadine Ott; Michael Hackl; Andreas Prescher; Martin Scaal; Fabian Lanzerath; Lars Peter Müller; Kilian Wegmann
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 3.067

4.  Diagnosis of traumatic shoulder arthrotomies using saline load test with intra-articular pressure monitoring.

Authors:  Matthew Belton; Naomi Kelley; Todd Baldini; Joshua Steward; Nicholas Alfonso
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2022-10-21

Review 5.  Biomechanical analysis of plate systems for proximal humerus fractures: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Ali Jabran; Chris Peach; Lei Ren
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2018-04-27       Impact factor: 2.819

6.  Mechanical evaluation of tibial fixation of the hamstring tendon in anterior cruciate ligament double-bundle reconstruction with and without interference screws.

Authors:  Anderson de Aquino Santos; Mario Carneiro-Filho; Roberto Freire da Mota E Albuquerque; João Paulo Freire Martins de Moura; Carlos Eduardo Franciozi; Marcus Vinícius Malheiros Luzo
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2020-04-30       Impact factor: 2.365

7.  Changes in deep neck muscle length from the neutral to forward head posture. A cadaveric study using Thiel cadavers.

Authors:  Guohao Lin; Weijie Wang; Tracey Wilkinson
Journal:  Clin Anat       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 2.409

Review 8.  Biomechanical analysis of fixation methods in acetabular fractures: a systematic review of test setups.

Authors:  Nico Hinz; Julius Dehoust; Matthias Münch; Klaus Seide; Tobias Barth; Arndt-Peter Schulz; Karl-Heinz Frosch; Maximilian J Hartel
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2022-03-19       Impact factor: 2.374

9.  Assessment of a novel biomechanical fracture model for distal radius fractures.

Authors:  Sebastian Felix Baumbach; Enrico Dall'Ara; Patrick Weninger; Anna Antoni; Hannes Traxler; Martin Dörr; Philippe K Zysset
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Mobility Assessment of the Supraspinatus in a Porcine Cadaver Model Using a Sensor-Enhanced, Arthroscopic Grasper.

Authors:  Felix Porschke; Christoph Luecke; Thorsten Guehring; Christel Weiss; Stefan Studier-Fischer; Paul Alfred Gruetzner; Marc Schnetzke
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2020-08-13       Impact factor: 3.934

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.