PURPOSE: Cerclage technology is regaining interest due to the increasing number of periprosthetic fractures. Different wiring techniques have been formerly proposed and have hibernated over years. Hereby, they are compared to current cerclage technology. METHODS: Seven groups (n = 6) of different cable cerclage (Ø1.7 mm, crimp closure) configurations (one single cerclage looped once around the shells, one single cerclage looped twice, two cerclages each looped once) and solid wire cerclages (Ø1.5 mm, twist closure) (same configurations as cable cerclages, and two braided wires, twisted around each other looped once) fixed two cortical half shells of human femoral shaft mounted on a testing jig. Sinusoidal cyclic loading with constantly increasing force (0.1 N/cycle) was applied starting at 50 N peak load. Cerclage pretension (P), load leading to onset of plastic deformation (D) and load at total failure (T) were identified. Statistical differences between the groups were detected by univariate ANOVA. RESULTS: Double looped cables (P442N ± 129; D1334N ± 319; T2734N ± 330) performed significantly better (p < 0.05) than single looped cables (P292N ± 56; D646N ± 108; T1622N ± 171) and were comparable to two single cables (P392N ± 154; D1191N ± 334; T2675N ± 361). Double looped wires (P335N ± 49; D752N ± 119; T1359N ± 80) were significantly better (p < 0.05) than single looped wires (P181N ± 16; D343N ± 33; T606N ± 109) and performed similarly to single looped cables. Braided wires (P119N ± 26; D225N ± 55; T919N ± 197) exhibited early loss of pretension and plastic deformation. CONCLUSION: Double looped cerclages provided a better fixation stability compared to a single looped cerclage. Double looped wires were comparable to a single looped cable. The use of braided wires could not be recommended mechanically.
PURPOSE: Cerclage technology is regaining interest due to the increasing number of periprosthetic fractures. Different wiring techniques have been formerly proposed and have hibernated over years. Hereby, they are compared to current cerclage technology. METHODS: Seven groups (n = 6) of different cable cerclage (Ø1.7 mm, crimp closure) configurations (one single cerclage looped once around the shells, one single cerclage looped twice, two cerclages each looped once) and solid wire cerclages (Ø1.5 mm, twist closure) (same configurations as cable cerclages, and two braided wires, twisted around each other looped once) fixed two cortical half shells of human femoral shaft mounted on a testing jig. Sinusoidal cyclic loading with constantly increasing force (0.1 N/cycle) was applied starting at 50 N peak load. Cerclage pretension (P), load leading to onset of plastic deformation (D) and load at total failure (T) were identified. Statistical differences between the groups were detected by univariate ANOVA. RESULTS: Double looped cables (P442N ± 129; D1334N ± 319; T2734N ± 330) performed significantly better (p < 0.05) than single looped cables (P292N ± 56; D646N ± 108; T1622N ± 171) and were comparable to two single cables (P392N ± 154; D1191N ± 334; T2675N ± 361). Double looped wires (P335N ± 49; D752N ± 119; T1359N ± 80) were significantly better (p < 0.05) than single looped wires (P181N ± 16; D343N ± 33; T606N ± 109) and performed similarly to single looped cables. Braided wires (P119N ± 26; D225N ± 55; T919N ± 197) exhibited early loss of pretension and plastic deformation. CONCLUSION: Double looped cerclages provided a better fixation stability compared to a single looped cerclage. Double looped wires were comparable to a single looped cable. The use of braided wires could not be recommended mechanically.
Authors: M P Bostrom; S E Asnis; J J Ernberg; T M Wright; V L Giddings; W S Berberian; A A Missri Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 1994-10 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Matthieu Ehlinger; Benjamin Scheibling; Michel Rahme; David Brinkert; Benoit Schenck; Antonio Di Marco; Philippe Adam; François Bonnomet Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Clemens Gwinner; Sven Märdian; Tobias Dröge; Martin Schulze; Michael J Raschke; Richard Stange Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Gregory S Lewis; Cyrus T Caroom; Hwabok Wee; Darin Jurgensmeier; Shane D Rothermel; Michelle A Bramer; John Spence Reid Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Lukas Weiser; Michal A Korecki; Kay Sellenschloh; Florian Fensky; Klaus Püschel; Michael M Morlock; Johannes M Rueger; Wolfgang Lehmann Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-04-26 Impact factor: 3.075