OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of a novel tibial external bone fracture fixator with a circular locking mechanism with standard dynamic axial external fixator. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In order to investigate the prototype usability in experimental conditions, a biomechanical study was performed in which 42 polyacetal tubes set in 14 experimental groups and subgroups represented the fractured tibia that were fixed by a standard dynamic axial external fixator and a novel fixator. Displacements under static and dynamic loads were measured, with static ones corresponding to three directions of fragment movement and dynamic simulating the human gait. Analysis was performed in SPSS v13, with significance set at P<0.05. RESULTS: The novel fixator showed biomechanical superiority in "fragments apart" study groups, while the standard dynamic axial external fixator outperformed the novel one in the situations of bending with "fragments in contact" study groups. There were no significant differences in dynamic load, despite better numerical result of the novel fixator. CONCLUSION: The novel fixator is expectedly faster applicable and offers greater extent of external fixation flexibility. Further developments of this model thus seems justified in both construction improvement and on clinical application.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of a novel tibial external bone fracture fixator with a circular locking mechanism with standard dynamic axial external fixator. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In order to investigate the prototype usability in experimental conditions, a biomechanical study was performed in which 42 polyacetal tubes set in 14 experimental groups and subgroups represented the fractured tibia that were fixed by a standard dynamic axial external fixator and a novel fixator. Displacements under static and dynamic loads were measured, with static ones corresponding to three directions of fragment movement and dynamic simulating the human gait. Analysis was performed in SPSS v13, with significance set at P<0.05. RESULTS: The novel fixator showed biomechanical superiority in "fragments apart" study groups, while the standard dynamic axial external fixator outperformed the novel one in the situations of bending with "fragments in contact" study groups. There were no significant differences in dynamic load, despite better numerical result of the novel fixator. CONCLUSION: The novel fixator is expectedly faster applicable and offers greater extent of external fixation flexibility. Further developments of this model thus seems justified in both construction improvement and on clinical application.
Authors: P L N Fernando; Aravinda Abeygunawardane; Pci Wijesinghe; Parakrama Dharmaratne; Pujitha Silva Journal: Med Eng Phys Date: 2021-11-04 Impact factor: 2.242