Literature DB >> 22377506

A biomechanical comparison of short segment long bone fracture fixation techniques: single large fragment plate versus 2 small fragment plates.

Adriel Watts1, Paul Weinhold, William Kesler, Laurence Dahners.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether using 2 small fragment plates (3.5 mm screw size) side by side is biomechanically superior to the use of 1 large fragment plate (4.5 mm screw size), in the fixation of "short segments" in long bone fractures.
METHODS: Fiber-filled epoxy bone surrogates were plated across 1-cm gaps with 3 different constructs. Six surrogates were fixed using 2 side-by-side 3.5-mm waisted compression plates and six 3.5-mm screws, 6 surrogates were fixed using one 4.5-mm waisted compression plate and two 4.5-mm screws, and 6 surrogates were fixed using one 3.5-mm waisted compression plate and three 3.5-mm screws. These constructs then underwent cyclic axial compression in 100-N increments until 500 N was reached. Then, they underwent cyclic cantilever bending at 2 Hz and at a 23.6 N·m moment until fatigue failure occurred. Also, a single load to failure test was performed in cantilever bending to evaluate plate strength.
RESULTS: The cumulative gap length change after 500 cycles of loading up to 500 N was 3.4% ± 0.4% for the 3.5 mm double plate construct, 9.5% ± 1.4% for the 4.5 mm single plate construct, and 14.4% ± 0.9% for the 3.5 mm single plate construct. In cantilever bending, the 3.5 mm double plate construct failed after 15,345 ± 2493 cycles, the 4.5 mm single plate construct failed after 2713 ± 1811 cycles, and the 3.5 mm single plate construct failed in its first cycle. In single load to failure testing, the load at offset yield was higher in the 3.5 mm double plate construct than the 4.5 mm single plate construct.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that in situations where anatomy or other limitations limit the length of bone segments available for fixation, it may be preferable to use 2 small plates with more screws rather than 1 large plate with few screws.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22377506     DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e318237c12d

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


  7 in total

1.  Dual plate fixation on distal third diaphyseal fracture of the humerus.

Authors:  Jun-Ku Lee; Yun-Sung Choi; Young-Suk Sim; Dae-Sung Choi; Soo-Hong Han
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Dual plating of humeral shaft fractures: orthogonal plates biomechanically outperform side-by-side plates.

Authors:  Victor Kosmopoulos; Arvind D Nana
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Dual plating for fixation of humeral shaft fractures: A mechanical comparison of various combinations of plate lengths.

Authors:  Ahmet Karakasli; Onur Basci; Fatih Ertem; Eyad Sekik; Hasan Havitcioglu
Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 1.511

4.  COMPARISON OF SINGLE- AND DOUBLE-PLATE FIXATION TECHNIQUES IN THE TREATMENT OF NONUNIONS OF THE HUMERAL SHAFT.

Authors:  Mehmet Akdemir; Çağdaş Biçen; Mustafa Özkan
Journal:  Acta Ortop Bras       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 0.513

5.  Comparison of three different surgical treatment methods in humeral shaft fractures.

Authors:  Bekir Karagoz; Mustafa Erdem; Mustafa Cukurlu; Ismail Agir
Journal:  Pan Afr Med J       Date:  2022-06-02

6.  The evaluation of a de novo biplanar distal humerus plate: A biomechanical study.

Authors:  Nihat Acar; Ahmet Karakaşlı; Onur Gürsan; R Buğra Hüsemoğlu
Journal:  Jt Dis Relat Surg       Date:  2022-07-06

7.  Quantitative Assessment of the Restoration of Original Anatomy after 3D Virtual Reduction of Long Bone Fractures.

Authors:  Moo-Sub Kim; Do-Kun Yoon; Seung-Han Shin; Bo-Young Choe; Jong-Won Rhie; Yang-Guk Chung; Tae Suk Suh
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-02
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.