Ahmet Karakasli1, Nihat Acar2, Ahmet Karaarslan3, Fatih Ertem4, Hasan Havitcioglu1. 1. Dokuz Eylul University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 35340 Balcova, Izmir, Turkey. 2. Gazikent Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 35340 Gazi Emir, Izmir, Turkey. 3. Şifa University Faculty of Medicine, Orthopedics and Traumotology Department, Sanayi St. No: 7, 35040 Bornova, Izmir, Turkey. 4. Dokuz Eylul University, Health Science Institute, Department of Biomechanics, 35340 Balcova, Izmir, Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Locking compression plate (LCP) system was designed to provide bone stability and to enhance bone healing. However, implant failure, nonunion and instability are still frequently encountered complications. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the biomechanical characteristics of a novel adjustable dynamic plate (ADP) with the commonly used LCP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve 4th generation composite artificial femoral bones were used. Transverse fracture was created in all bones, 6 femurs were fixated using the novel ADP, whereas the other 6 femurs were fixated using the traditional LCP. All samples had undergone a non-destructive repetitive different forces (axial compression, bending and torsion), to evaluate the biomechanical differences between the two plating systems. RESULTS: Under axial load the mean stiffness value was 439.0 N/mm for the ADP and 158.9 N/mm for the LCP, ADP showed a statistically significant stiffness value than LCP with a P value of 0.004. There was no significant difference in flexion/extension bending strain values between ADP and LCP. However LCP provided significantly stiffer fixation in medial and lateral bending tests than ADP (P = 0.037) and (P = 0.016) respectively. But no significant difference was detected between the two plating system in the applied torsional stress. CONCLUSION: These results do not show any significant biomechanical difference in the applied torsional and bending stresses between LCP and ADP. However the remarkably increased persistent compression effect of the ADP created a considerable stress on fracture edges which may accelerate bone healing.
INTRODUCTION: Locking compression plate (LCP) system was designed to provide bone stability and to enhance bone healing. However, implant failure, nonunion and instability are still frequently encountered complications. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the biomechanical characteristics of a novel adjustable dynamic plate (ADP) with the commonly used LCP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve 4th generation composite artificial femoral bones were used. Transverse fracture was created in all bones, 6 femurs were fixated using the novel ADP, whereas the other 6 femurs were fixated using the traditional LCP. All samples had undergone a non-destructive repetitive different forces (axial compression, bending and torsion), to evaluate the biomechanical differences between the two plating systems. RESULTS: Under axial load the mean stiffness value was 439.0 N/mm for the ADP and 158.9 N/mm for the LCP, ADP showed a statistically significant stiffness value than LCP with a P value of 0.004. There was no significant difference in flexion/extension bending strain values between ADP and LCP. However LCP provided significantly stiffer fixation in medial and lateral bending tests than ADP (P = 0.037) and (P = 0.016) respectively. But no significant difference was detected between the two plating system in the applied torsional stress. CONCLUSION: These results do not show any significant biomechanical difference in the applied torsional and bending stresses between LCP and ADP. However the remarkably increased persistent compression effect of the ADP created a considerable stress on fracture edges which may accelerate bone healing.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adjustable dynamic biomechanical comparison; Locking compression plate; Long bone fractures
Authors: A Ignatius; H Blessing; A Liedert; C Schmidt; C Neidlinger-Wilke; D Kaspar; B Friemert; L Claes Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Shahryar Ahmadi; Suraj Shah; Jay S Wunder; Emil H Schemitsch; Peter C Ferguson; Rad Zdero Journal: Proc Inst Mech Eng H Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 1.617
Authors: Jan Korner; Gerd Diederichs; Michael Arzdorf; Helmut Lill; Christoph Josten; Erich Schneider; Berend Linke Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.512