Benjamin J Ahern1, Brent L Showalter, Dawn M Elliott, Dean W Richardson, Liberty M Getman.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the in vitro biomechanical properties of a 4.5 mm narrow locking compression plate (PIP-LCP) with 2 abaxially located transarticular screws and a 4.5 mm limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) with 2 abaxially located transarticular screws using equine pasterns. STUDY
DESIGN: Experimental. Paired in vitro biomechanical testing of 2 methods for stabilizing adult equine forelimb PIP joints. ANIMAL: Adult equine forelimbs (n = 8 pairs).
METHODS: Each pair of PIP joints were randomly instrumented with either a PIP-LCP or LC-DCP plate axially and 2 parasagitally positioned 5.5 mm transarticular screws. The proximal aspect of the proximal phalanx (P1) and the distal aspect of the middle phalanx (P2) were embedded to allow for mounting on a mechanical testing machine. Each construct was tested in both cyclic and subsequently single cycle to failure in 4-point bending. The displacement required to maintain a target load of 1 kN over 3600 cycles at 1 Hz was recorded. Maximum bending moment at failure and construct stiffness was calculated from the single cycle to failure testing.
RESULTS: In cyclic testing, significantly more displacement occurred in the LC-DCP (0.46 ± 0.10 mm) than for the PIP-LCP (0.17 ± 0.11 mm) constructs (P = .016). During single cycle testing there was no significant difference in the bending moment between the LC-DCP (148.7 ± 19.4 N m) and the PIP-LCP (164.6 ± 17.6 N m) constructs (P = .553) and the stiffness of the LC-DCP (183.9 ± 26.9 N mm) was significantly lower than for the PIP-LCP (279.8 ± 15.9 N/mm) constructs (P = .011). All constructs failed by fracture of the bone associated with the transarticular screws and subsequently bending of the plates at the middle hole.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of the PIP-LCP resulted in a stiffer construct of the same strength as the LC-DCP in vitro using this 4-point bending model. © Copyright 2013 by The American College of Veterinary Surgeons.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the in vitro biomechanical properties of a 4.5 mm narrow locking compression plate (PIP-LCP) with 2 abaxially located transarticular screws and a 4.5 mm limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) with 2 abaxially located transarticular screws using equine pasterns. STUDY
DESIGN: Experimental. Paired in vitro biomechanical testing of 2 methods for stabilizing adult equine forelimb PIP joints. ANIMAL: Adult equine forelimbs (n = 8 pairs).
METHODS: Each pair of PIP joints were randomly instrumented with either a PIP-LCP or LC-DCP plate axially and 2 parasagitally positioned 5.5 mm transarticular screws. The proximal aspect of the proximal phalanx (P1) and the distal aspect of the middle phalanx (P2) were embedded to allow for mounting on a mechanical testing machine. Each construct was tested in both cyclic and subsequently single cycle to failure in 4-point bending. The displacement required to maintain a target load of 1 kN over 3600 cycles at 1 Hz was recorded. Maximum bending moment at failure and construct stiffness was calculated from the single cycle to failure testing.
RESULTS: In cyclic testing, significantly more displacement occurred in the LC-DCP (0.46 ± 0.10 mm) than for the PIP-LCP (0.17 ± 0.11 mm) constructs (P = .016). During single cycle testing there was no significant difference in the bending moment between the LC-DCP (148.7 ± 19.4 N m) and the PIP-LCP (164.6 ± 17.6 N m) constructs (P = .553) and the stiffness of the LC-DCP (183.9 ± 26.9 N mm) was significantly lower than for the PIP-LCP (279.8 ± 15.9 N/mm) constructs (P = .011). All constructs failed by fracture of the bone associated with the transarticular screws and subsequently bending of the plates at the middle hole.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of the PIP-LCP resulted in a stiffer construct of the same strength as the LC-DCP in vitro using this 4-point bending model. © Copyright 2013 by The American College of Veterinary Surgeons.
Entities:
Mesh：
Year: 2013
PMID： 23445267 DOI： 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2013.01111.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Surg ISSN： 0161-3499 Impact factor: 1.495