| Literature DB >> 27628500 |
Paul J Switaj1, Daniel Fuchs2, Mohammed Alshouli2, Avinash G Patwardhan3, Leonard I Voronov3, Muturi Muriuki3, Robert M Havey3, Anish R Kadakia2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A lateral approach with open reduction and internal fixation with a plate is a very effective technique for the majority of distal fibular fractures. However, this open approach for ankle fixation may be complicated by wound dehiscence and infection, especially in high-risk patients. An alternative to plating is an intramedullary implant, which allows maintenance of length, alignment, and rotation and which allows for decreased soft tissue dissection. While there has been clinical data suggesting favorable short-term outcomes with these implants, there is no current biomechanical literature investigating this technology in this particular fracture pattern. This study sought to biomechanically compare an emerging technology with an established method of fixation for distal fibular fractures that traditionally require an extensive exposure.Entities:
Keywords: Ankle fracture; Biomechanical; Fibula; Intramedullary rod; Locked plate
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27628500 PMCID: PMC5024498 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-016-0435-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1Post-fixation images of the fibular nail group (a) and the locked plate group (b)
Fig. 2Post-fixation anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of the fibular nail group (a) and the locked plate group (b)
Fig. 3Biomechanical setup of a cadaveric specimen from posterior, demonstrating the custom plate and individual polymethylmethacrylate mold
External rotation stiffness values, syndesmotic diastasis values, and failure properties for the fibular nail group and locked plate group
| External rotation stiffness (Nm/degree) | Native | Fibular nail | Locked plate |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-cyclic loading | ||||
| Across fracture | 1.2 ± 0.3 | 2.0 ± 1.5 | 5.8 ± 2.0 | 0.02* |
| Across syndesmosis | 1.5 ± 0.5 | 1.0 ± 0.4 | 2.8 ± 1.7 | 0.048* |
| Post-cyclic loading | ||||
| Across fracture | 1.7 ± 0.2 | 3.1 ± 2.0 | 4.5 ± 1.4 | 0.23 |
| Across syndesmosis | 2.0 ± 0.3 | 1.5 ± 0.6 | 2.7 ± 0.8 | 0.03* |
| Syndesmotic diastasis (mm) | ||||
| Pre-cyclic loading | 1.4 ± 0.3 | 1.4 ± 0.5 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 0.08a |
| Post-cyclic loading | 1.7 ± 0.4 | 2.4 ± 1.9 | 1.4 ± 0.5 | 0.08a |
| External rotation to failure | 2.3 ± 0.8 | 7.6 ± 8.8 | 5.6 ± 3.0 | 0.465 |
| Failure properties | ||||
| Torque to failure (Nm) | 29.6 ± 4.8 | 28.1 ± 6.2 | 0.46 | |
| Angle to failure (degree) | 91.6 ± 15.8 | 93.5 ± 18.2 | 0.73 | |
| Mode to failure (# of specimens) | ||||
| Screw loosening | 4 | 7 | ||
| Soft tissue damage | 1 | 1 | ||
| Fibular fracture | 3 | 1 | ||
*Statistically significant
aThe effect of construct on gap considers the pre- and post-cycle data together using repeated ANOVA
Fig. 4Bar graph depicting rotational stiffness data for both groups both pre-cycle and post-cycle
Fig. 5Bar graph depicting syndesmotic diastasis data for both groups both pre-cycle and post-cycle