Nonlinear stiffness profiles of external fixators constructed with composite rods

OBJECTIVE: To determine if composite connecting rods confer nonlinear stiffness characteristics on unilateral and bilateral external skeletal fixators (ESF) in cranial-caudal bending and axial loading. STUDY DESIGN: Mechanical testing performed on models. SAMPLE POPULATION: Six models of 6-pin ESF constructs composed of birch dowels, a commercial ESF system, and composite connecting rods. METHODS: Unilateral and bilateral ESF configurations were assembled using either specially designed composite titanium and silicone (composite group) or solid titanium (solid group) connecting rods. Mechanical testing was performed in axial loading and 4-point cranial-caudal bending. Stiffness was determined at a low and high-load range, and was considered increasing and nonlinear if the stiffness at high loads was greater than at low loads. RESULTS: The stiffness of the solid group was linear in all testing modes and configurations. Bilateral composite fixators had a nonlinear increasing stiffness in axial loading and cranial-caudal bending. Unilateral composite fixators had a nonlinear increasing stiffness in axial loading, but not cranial-caudal bending. Solid connecting rods conferred a higher stiffness in all testing modes and configurations. CONCLUSIONS: Composite connecting rods resulted in nonlinear increasing axial and bending stiffness in bilateral fixators, and in axial load in unilateral fixators. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Conventional ESF can be constructed so that the stiffness increases as load increases. This provides the surgeon with additional options to control the local mechanical environment of a healing fracture, which may be used to enhance fracture healing.     

Are Circular External Fixators Weakened by the use of Hemispheric Washers?

OBJECTIVES: To compare the axial mechanical stability of 3 circular external fixators systems with and without hemispheric washers. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study. METHODS: The axial stiffness and load necessary to produce 0.5 and 1 mm of displacement of 10 circular external fixator constructs from 3 manufacturers were tested on a materials testing machine. The constructs tested included the Small Bone fixator (SBF; Hofmann S.a.S., Monza, Italy), the IMEX ring fixator (IMEX Inc., Longview, TX), and the Multiplanar C-Fix (MCF; PanVet Distribuzione, Seriate, Italy). Five configurations were tested for each construct: (1) conventional nut fixation, (2) hemispheric washer fixation with connecting rods offset by 0, (3) 1, and (4) 2 holes, and (5) with a ring placed at maximum angulation. RESULTS: The loads resisted at 0.5 and 1 mm of displacement did not differ when frame configurations were compared (P =.25733 and.33769, respectively). The linear stiffness of the following configurations were decreasingly stiff: standard constructs, hemispheric washers with connecting rods perpendicular to rings, hemispheric washers with connecting rods offset by 1 hole, hemispheric washers with connecting rods offset by 2 holes, and ring offset in relation to bone model. The SBF constructs tested were 34% and 41% more rigid than the IMEX and MCF constructs tested despite the larger diameter of the connecting rods for the IMEX frames (6 mm) compared with the SBF frames (5 mm). The IMEX constructs tested were 6% more rigid than the MCF constructs tested. CONCLUSIONS: Adding hemispheric washers and angling connecting rods in relation to rings did not influence the loads resisted at 0.5 and 1 mm displacement but decreased construct stiffness. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of hemispheric washers had minor effects on the biomechanical performance of fixator frames tested in this study when used to angle a ring in relation to connecting rods for circular external fixators.     

Evaluation of a nontoxic rigid polymer as connecting bar in external skeletal fixators

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the mechanical characteristics of a nontoxic, low-cost, rigid polymer (RP) and to compare the structural and mechanical properties of a full-frame external skeletal fixator (ESF) with either RP connecting bars, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) connecting bars, or stainless-steel (SS) clamps and connecting bars. STUDY DESIGN: In vitro mechanical evaluation. METHODS: Mechanical properties were assessed using an in vitro bone fracture model with a bilateral uniplanar ESF (type II). Identical ESF were built with connecting bars using RP (n = 8), PMMA (n = 8), and SS connecting bars and clamps (System Meynard; n = 3). Nondestructive mechanical tests were performed in uniaxial compression (AC) and craniocaudal (CC) 4-point bending, as well as fatigue AC. Composite stiffness for each specimen and for each loading mode was calculated from 6 replicate measures using the slope of the load displacement curve at small displacements. RESULTS: RP, PMMA, and SS ESF constructs yielded mean +/- SD composite stiffness values of 227 +/- 15, 381 +/- 30, and 394 +/- 9 N/mm in AC and of 35 +/- 2, 24 +/- 2, and 15 +/- 0 N/mm in CC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Structural and mechanical properties of RP are satisfactorily rigid and fatigue resistant for its use as a connecting bar in ESF. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: RP connecting bars in an ESF are a reliable, versatile, nontoxic and inexpensive option for the veterinary surgeon.     

Dissipation of Heat During Polymerization of Acrylics Used for External Skeletal Fixator Connecting Bars

Objective — To determine the amount of heat conducted by transfixation intramedullary pins (IP) and Kirschner wires (KW) during polymerization of acrylics used for external skeletal fixator (ESF) connecting bars.
Study Design — Thermal conduction was measured using thermistors applied to IP and KW surfaces during the polymerization phase of acrylics.
Methods — Type II ESF were created from IP or KW placed into wooden dowels and plastic tubing used to create connecting bars filled with one of two types of acrylic (Acrylic Pin External Fixation System or Technovit, Jorgensen Laboratories, Loveland, CO). Thermistors were positioned on the acrylic column surface and on IP or KW surfaces 5 or 10 mm from the acrylic column. Five ESF test groups were created. The maximum temperature (Tmax) of the acrylic column (Tmax-A), IP (Tmax-IP), KW (Tmax-KW), and duration that Tmax-IP or Tmax-KW remained greater than or equal to 55°C were calculated.
Results — All IP and KW thermistors placed 5 mm from acrylic columns reached mean temperatures greater than 50°C and had peak temperature ranges greater than 55°C compared with all IP and KW thermistors placed 10 mm from the acrylic columns in all groups. Thermistors placed 5 mm from the acrylic column in two groups maintained temperatures greater than 55°C for greater than or equal to 0.5 minutes.
Conclusions — Acrylic columns positioned 5 mm from a thermistor on a IP or KW had the potential to reach or exceed temperatures that have been reported to cause thermal necrosis of tissues.
Clinical Relevance — Acrylic Pin External Fixation System or Technovit acrylic connecting bars used in ESF designs have the potential to cause thermal injury to soft and bony tissue by thermal conduction along transfixation pins or wires.     

Comparison of Multistage Versus One-Stage Destabilization of a Type II External Fixator Used to Stabilize an Oblique Tibial Osteotomy in Dogs

OBJECTIVE: To compare the biomechanical effects of multistage versus one-stage destabilization of a type II external skeletal fixator (ESF) used to stabilize an oblique unstable tibial osteotomy in dogs. STUDY DESIGN: In vitro, in vivo, and ex vivo experimental study. ANIMAL POPULATION: Twelve healthy adult dogs. METHODS: The biomechanical characteristics of the type II ESF used in this study were determined. This fixator was applied to both tibiae of two groups of 6 dogs to stabilize a 2-mm-wide oblique osteotomy. One fixator on each dog remained unchanged throughout the 11-week study (control group). The fixator on the opposite limb was destabilized late and acutely in one group of dogs (single-stage) and early and progressively in the other (multistage). Clinical examination, radiographic examination, and force-plate analysis were used to evaluate the results. All dogs were euthanatized at 11 weeks. All tibiae were scanned to determine the cross-sectional area of the callus in the center of the osteotomy and subjected to biomechanical tests to determine mean pull-out strength of pins and callus strength and stiffness. RESULTS: Stiffness of the type II ESF used in this study was 578 N/mm in axial compression, 0.767 Nm/deg in torsion, 261 N/mm in medio-lateral bending, and 25 N/mm in cranio-caudal bending. Peak vertical forces of the hindlimbs were significantly lower at 2.5 and 5 weeks than before surgery. Peak vertical forces of the hindlimbs did not change before and after destabilization. No significant differences could be detected between the two destabilization sequences or between all control tibiae and pooled destabilized tibiae with regards to radiographic evaluation of the healing osteotomy, cross-sectional periosteal callus area, mean pull-out strength of transfixation pins, callus strength, and callus stiffness. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Bone healing of unstable osteotomies stabilized with a type II ESF is not significantly enhanced by staged destabilization of the fixation as performed in this study.     

A mechanical comparison of veterinary linear external fixation systems

OBJECTIVE: To compare the fixation rigidity of recently developed external fixation systems (EFSs) to that of the traditional Kirschner-Ehmer (KE) system. STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Five different EFSs (KE, Secur-U, small SK carbon fiber, small SK titanium, large SK carbon fiber) were assembled into 7 frame geometries to stabilize Delrin plastic rods with a 1-cm gap. METHODS: External skeletal fixation (ESF) constructs were tested in axial compression, torsion, medial-lateral bending, and cranial-caudal bending. Testing was conducted within the elastic range of each fixator. Mean stiffness in each mode was determined from the slope of the linear portion of the load-deformation curve. Comparison of stiffness values of each EFS within each loading mode and frame type was performed with 1-way analysis of variance (P <.05). RESULTS: Mean stiffness values were significantly higher for the large SK EFS in all frame types compared with KE but were equal in torsional stiffness in the double-bar type 1a frame. The small SK EFS with titanium connecting bar had greater stiffness than the KE in all modes for frame types Ia, Ia-accessory bar, and II-modified. No overall difference was detected between the KE EFS and the small SK with carbon fiber rod. The stiffness of the Secur-U type Ia frame with augmentation plate was significantly greater than the KE type Ia with accessory bar. CONCLUSIONS: The newer external fixation systems evaluated in this study provided fixation rigidity equal to or greater than that of the KE system. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: EFSs with increased frame rigidity should permit the use of less complex frame designs while providing fracture stability.     

An In Vitro Biomechanical Study of a Multiplanar Circular External Fixator Applied to Equine Third Metacarpal Bones

The biomechanical characteristics of a 4-ring circular multiplanar fixator applied to equine third metacarpal bones with a 5 mm mid-diaphyseal osteotomy gap were studied. Smooth Steinmann pins, either 1/8 inch, 3/16 inch, or 1/4 inch, were driven through pilot holes in the bone in a crossed configuration and full pin fashion and fastened to the fixator rings using cannulated fixation bolts. The third metacarpal bone fixator constructs were tested in three different modes (cranial-caudal four-point bending, axial compression, and torsion). Loads of 2,000 N were applied in bending and axial compression tests and a load of 50 N ± m was applied during testing in torsion. Fixator stiffness was determined by the slope of the load displacement curves. Three constructs for each pin size were tested in each mode. Comparisons between axial stiffness, bending stiffness, and torsional stiffness for each of the three different pin sizes were made using one-way analysis of variance. There was no visually apparent deformation or permanent damage to the fixator frame, and no third metacarpal bone failure in any of the tests. Plastic deformation occurred in the 1/8 inch pins during bending, compression, and torsion testing. The 3/16 inch and 1/4 inch pins elastically deformed in all testing modes. Mean (±SE) axial compressive stiffness for the 1/8 inch, 3/16 inch, and 1/4 inch pin fixator constructs was: 182 ± 16 N/mm, 397 ± 21 N/mm, and 566 ± 8.7 N/mm; bending stiffness was 106 ± 3.3 N/mm, 410 ± 21 N/mm, and 548 ± 12 N/mm; and torsional stiffness was 6.15 ± 0.82 N.m/degree, 7.14 ± 0.0 N±m/degree, and 11.9 ± 1.0 N.m/degree respectively. For statically applied loads our results would indicate that a 4-ring fixator using two 1/4 inch pins per ring may not be stiff enough for repair of an unstable third metacarpal bone fracture in a 450 kg horse.     

Validation of a finite element model of the Kirschner-Ehmer external skeletal fixation system.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of finite element analysis (FEA) as a means of examining biomechanical properties of the Kirschner-Ehmer external skeletal fixation system. SAMPLE POPULATION: 10 paired tibiae harvested from skeletally mature dogs weighing between 30 and 38 kg immediately following euthanasia for reasons unrelated to musculoskeletal disease. PROCEDURE: A gap fracture was created in each bone; fragments were stabilized with 3 frame configurations (type I, type II, and type III), using enhanced-profile threaded pins. Each bone-frame construct was tested, using a materials testing machine in 3 modes of testing: axial compression (AC), mediolateral (ML) bending, and craniocaudal (CC) bending, for a total of 9 tests/bone. The elastic limit of the constructs was not exceeded during testing. Mean stiffness values were determined from load-displacement curves. A finite element model of each construct was created, using three-dimensional elastic beam elements, and stiffness values were calculated, using FEA. Correlations between experimental and FEA data then were determined. RESULTS: Significant differences in stiffness were seen among all 3 constructs in CC bending and AC, with stiffness increasing with construct complexity. No significant difference in ML bending stiffness was seen between type-II and type-III constructs; however, both were significantly stiffer than the type-I constructs. The experimental and FEA stiffness data were strongly correlated (AC, r = 0.994; ML bending, r = 0.998; CC bending, r = 0.985). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Strong correlations among experimental and FEA data indicate that FEA is a valid method of comparing stiffness of Kirschner-Ehmer external skeletal fixation constructs.     

Effects of the number and the position of transfixation pins in acrylic connecting bars

Acrylic columns are commonly used in external skeletal fixators, especially for fracture management or trans-articular fixations. To the authors’ knowledge, there are no studies demonstrating if the number or position of the transfixation pins influence the ultimate strength and stiffness of the acrylic column. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of the number and position of transfixation pins (concentric versus eccentric) on the strength and stiffness of acrylic columns placed in axial compression. We hypothesized that strength and stiffness of acrylic columns under axial compression would not be affected by the number or position of the transfixation pins through the column. Three different groups of 12 acrylic columns were constructed with 4, 6, and 8 pins. In each group, 6 columns were constructed with the pins placed concentrically and the remaining 6 columns with the pins placed eccentrically. Each column was then placed under axial compression using a biomechanical testing machine. No significant differences were observed in ultimate strength regarding the number or position of transfixation pins (P = 0.83 and P = 0.27, respectively). However, stiffness was significantly decreased for columns with 4 eccentric pins compared with columns with 6 and 8 eccentric pins (P < 0.01) and with columns with 4 concentric pins (P < 0.001). Although the effects of transfixation pins on the rigidity of acrylic columns do not appear to be clinically significant, these tests were performed only in compression and results might differ if complete external fixator systems are used with different models of testing. Future studies are recommended.     

Mechanical testing of a steel-reinforced epoxy resin bar and clamp for external skeletal fixation of long-bone fractures in cats

AIMS: To provide veterinarians with confidence when using a commercially available epoxy resin in external skeletal fixators (ESF), testing was conducted to determine exothermia during curing of the epoxy resin compared to polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), the hardness of the epoxy resin as a bar over 16 weeks, and the strength of the epoxy resin bar compared with metal clamps in similarly constructed Type 1a ESF constructs simulating the repair of feline long bone fractures.

METHODS: Exothermia of the epoxy resin during curing was tested against PMMA with surface temperatures recorded over the first 15 minutes of curing, using four samples of each product. The hardness of 90 identical epoxy resin bars was tested by subjecting them to cyclic loads (1,000 cycles of 20.5?N, every 7 days) over a 16-week period and impact testing 10 bars every 2 weeks. Ten bars that were not subjected to cyclic loads were impact tested at 0 weeks and another 10 at 16 weeks. Strength of the epoxy resin product, as a bar and clamp composite, was tested against metal SK and Kirschner-Ehmer (KE) clamps and bars in Type 1a, tied-in intramedullary pin, ESF constructs with either 90° or 75° pin placement, subjected to compressive and bending loads to 75?N.

RESULTS: The maximum temperature during curing of the epoxy resin (min 39.8, max 43.0)°C was less than the PMMA (min 85.2, max 98.5)°C (p<0.001). There was no change in hardness of the epoxy resin bars over the 16 weeks of cyclic loading (p=0.58). There were no differences between the median strength of the epoxy resin, SK or KE ESF constructs in compression or bending when tested to 75?N (p>0.05). Stiffness of constructs with 75° pin placement was greater for SK than epoxy resin constructs in compression (p=0.046), and was greater for KE than epoxy resin constructs in bending (p=0.033).

CONCLUSIONS: The epoxy resin tested was found to be less exothermic than PMMA; bars made from the epoxy resin showed durability over an expected fracture healing timeframe and had mechanical strength characteristics comparable to metal bar and clamp ESF constructs.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The epoxy resin ESF construct tested in this study can be considered a suitable replacement for SK or KE ESF constructs in the treatment of feline long-bone fractures, in terms of mechanical strength.     

Biomechanical analysis of 3 fixation techniques in rabbit radius and humerus bones

The objective of this study was to compare the strength and stiffness of various fixation methods applied to the long bones of the rabbit forelimb. Twenty rabbit radius/ulna and 20 rabbit humeri were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups. Control bones remained intact, whereas all others were osteotomized to create fracture models that were fixated with locking plate and locking screws (LP), veterinary cuttable plate (VCP) with cortical screws, or external skeletal fixator constructs (ESF), and tested in 4-point bending until failure. Load/deformation curves were generated for each sample and used to calculate stiffness (slope of the curve) and strength (load to failure). Intact controls had greater strength and stiffness than any fixation techniques in the rabbit radius/ulna and humeri samples. Locking plate and VCP constructs had greater stiffness than ESF when applied to the radius, whereas locking plate constructs were stronger than VCP or ESF when applied to the humerus. Overall, the LP construct had characteristics most closely resembling those of the intact control regarding strength in the humerus. Therefore, fracture fixation with a LP would provide the greatest strength in humeral fracture repairs in the rabbit.     

Evaluation of strength at the acrylic-pin interface for variably treated external skeletal fixator pins

Objective: To report pullout force to failure at the acrylic–pin interface for variably treated 3.2 mm external skeletal fixator pins. Study Design: In vitro biomechanical evaluation. Sample Population: 3.2 mm external skeletal fixator pins in polymethylmethacrylate bars. Methods: 3.2 mm external skeletal fixator pins were used for each of 5 treatment groups: polished, unpolished, 3 notched, 5 notched, and machine knurled. Each pin was seated into a 2‐cm‐diameter acrylic connecting bar and tested in pullout force to failure. Each group consisted of 6 pins. The force required to remove the pins from the acrylic bar was measured and compared between groups. Results: Significant differences between treatment groups were determined (P<.05). Within a construct group failure mode was consistent. Fracture of the acrylic bar was only seen with knurled pin ends. Conclusions: When using 2 cm acrylic bars in external skeletal fixation (ESF), a knurled pin shaft or a pin surface with 5 notches should be considered to improve the overall stability of the ESF construct.     

Biomechanical characteristics of allogeneic cortical bone pins designed for fracture fixation.

The biomechanical characteristics of 1.2 mm diameter allogeneic cortical bone pins harvested from the canine tibia were evaluated and compared to 1.1 mm diameter stainless steel pins and 1.3 mm diameter polydioxanone (PDS) pins using impact testing and four-point bending. The biomechanical performance of allogeneic cortical bone pins using impact testing was uniform with no significant differences between sites, side, and gender. In four-point bending, cortical bone pins harvested from the left tibia (204.8 +/- 77.4 N/mm) were significantly stiffer than the right tibia (123.7 +/- 54.4 N/mm, P = 0.0001). The site of bone pin harvest also had a significant effect on stiffness, but this was dependent on interactions with gender and side. Site C in male dogs had the highest mean stiffness in the left tibia (224.4 +/- 40.4 N/mm), but lowest stiffness in the right tibia (84.9 +/- 24.2 N/mm). Site A in female dogs had the highest mean stiffness in the left tibia (344.9 +/- 117.4 N/mm), but lowest stiffness in the right tibia (60.8 +/- 3.7 N/mm). The raw and adjusted bending properties of 1.2 mm cortical bone pins were significantly better than 1.3 mm PDS pins, but significantly worse than 1.1 mm stainless steel pins (P < 0.0001). In conclusion, cortical bone pins may be suitable as an implant for fracture fixation based on initial biomechanical comparison to stainless steel and PDS pins used in clinical practice.     

Use of hinged transarticular external fixation for adjunctive joint stabilization in dogs and cats: 14 cases (1999-2003)

OBJECTIVES: To describe placement of hinged transarticular external fixation (HTEF) frames and evaluate their ability to protect the primary repair of unstable joints while allowing joint mobility in dogs and cats. DESIGN: Retrospective study. ANIMALS: 8 cats and 6 dogs. PROCEDURE: HTEF frames were composed of metal or epoxy connecting rods and a hinge. Measurements of range of motion of affected and contralateral joints and radiographs were made after fixator application and removal. RESULTS: 9 animals (4 cats and 5 dogs) had tarsal and 5 (4 cats and 1 dog) had stifle joint injuries. Treatment duration ranged from 45 to 100 days (median, 57 days). Ranges of motion in affected stifle and tarsal joints were 57% and 72% of control while HTEF was in place and 79% and 84% of control after frame removal. Complications were encountered in 3 cats and 2 dogs and included breakage of pins and connecting rods, hinge loosening, and failure at the hinge-epoxy interface. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: HTEF in animals with traumatic joint instability provided adjunctive joint stabilization during healing and protection of the primary repair and maintained joint motion during healing, resulting in early weight bearing of the affected limb.     

Application and postoperative management of external skeletal fixators.

Application of external skeletal fixation involves preoperative assessment of the fracture with regards to healing potential of the bone and stabilizing requirements of the fixator. The fixator can be used alone or with supplemental (IM pin, cerclage, hemicerclage, Kirschner wires, bone screws) fixation to counteract shear, bending, and torsional forces at the fracture site. In addition, cancellous bone grafting can be used to enhance fracture healing. Rigid frames should be based on predrilling pilot holes followed by slow speed or hand insertion of smooth and threaded pins. Precise knowledge of regional anatomy precludes iatrogenic neurovascular or muscular tissue damage, which, subsequently, improves patient morbidity. Postoperative care of the fixator consists of bulky wraps to control pin-skin motion and cleaning of pin tract drainage sites. "Dynamization" or bone loading can be performed during fracture healing to stimulate osteosynthesis. This involves staged disassembly and reduction of frames by removing pins and connecting rods.     

In vitro biomechanical properties of linear, circular, and hybrid external skeletal fixation devices for use in large ruminants

OBJECTIVE: To report the biomechanical properties of 3 external skeletal fixation (ESF) devices for use in large ruminants. STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical testing of ESF constructs. SAMPLE POPULATION: Adult buffalo (weighing, 250-350 kg) tibiae (n=27). METHODS: ESF constructs (bilateral linear fixator [BLF], 4-ring circular external fixator [CEF], and hybrid fixator [HF]) were made using mild (low carbon) steel implants plated with nickel and cadaveric buffalo tibiae. After ESF application, a 1 cm mid-diaphyseal gap was created. Constructs were loaded to failure, on a materials testing machine, in axial compression (n=5/ESF type) and craniocaudal bending (n=3/ESF type). In addition, 3 CEF constructs were tested in intact tibiae under craniocaudal bending. RESULT: In compression, HF was the strongest and most rigid construct; yield load was significantly higher for HF than for BLF or CEF. Under bending, both CEF and HF had similar strength and modulus of elasticity. Strength for BLF was higher than CEF and HF, whereas the reverse was true for modulus of elasticity. CONCLUSIONS: ESF made from mild steel for use in large ruminants could withstand相似文献   

Treatment of growth deformities with external skeletal fixation.

Growth deformities of the long bones are usually caused by premature closure of the physis. The most commonly affected bones are the radius, ulna, and tibia. Premature closure of the physis can result in shortened, angular, and rotational bone deformities, especially when one bone of a paired bone system like the radius and ulna is affected. Adjacent joints may develop osteoarthritis. Corrective osteotomy to realign in joint surfaces is indicated in mature animals. Bilateral or type II external fixation frames are used to stabilize the osteotomies. The advantages of ESF are: (1) The transfixation pins can be used as guide pins to realign joints. (2) The fixation allows rigid stabilization of the osteotomy site. (3) Postoperative correction of alignment can be achieved. (4) Implant removal after bone union is simple.     

In vitro comparison of the use of two large-animal, centrally threaded, positive-profile transfixation pin designs in the equine third metacarpal bone

OBJECTIVE: To compare the in vitro holding power and associated microstructural damage of 2 large-animal centrally threaded positive-profile transfixation pins in the diaphysis of the equine third metacarpal bone. SAMPLE POPULATION: 25 pairs of adult equine cadaver metacarpal bones. PROCEDURE: Centrally threaded positive-profile transfixation pins of 2 different designs (ie, self-drilling, self-tapping [SDST] vs nonself-drilling, nonself-tapping [NDNT] transfixation pins) were inserted into the middiaphysis of adult equine metacarpal bones. Temperature of the hardware was measured during each step of insertion with a surface thermocouple. Bone and cortical width, transfixation pin placement, and cortical damage were assessed radiographically. Resistance to axial extraction before and after cyclic loading was measured using a material testing system. Microstructural damage caused by transfixation pin insertion was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The temperature following pin insertion was significantly higher for SDST transfixation pins. Periosteal surface cortical fractures were found in 50% of the bones with SDST transfixation pins and in none with NDNT transfixation pins. The NDNT transfixation pins were significantly more resistant to axial extraction than SDST transfixation pins. Grossly and microscopically, NDNT transfixation pins created less damage to the bone and a more consistent thread pattern. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In vitro analysis revealed that insertion of NDNT transfixation pins cause less macroscopic and microscopic damage to the bone than SDST transfixation pins. The NDNT transfixation pins have a greater pull out strength, reflecting better initial bone transfixation pin stability.     

Management of femoral fractures in dogs with unilateral semicircular external skeletal fixators

Objective: To report use of semicircular external skeletal fixators (ESF) for management of femoral fractures in dogs. Study Design: Prospective clinical study. Animals: Dogs (n=16) with femoral fractures (n=18). Methods: A semicircular ESF system composed of 6‐hole 45° or 5‐hole 40° carbon‐fiber arches, 6 mm threaded rods, half pin fixation bolts, 6 mm nuts, and negative profile end‐threaded half pins were used for open repair of femoral fractures. ESF configuration, complications, limb use, fixator removal time, and functional outcomes were evaluated. Outcome was graded as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Results: Seventeen fractures with sufficient follow‐up healed. Eight dogs started using the limb immediately after waking up from anesthesia whereas initial limb use was 1–4 days after repair in the other dogs. Time to fixator removal ranged from 28 to 63 days (mean, 38 days). Functional outcome was excellent in 13 cases, good in 4, and poor in 1 nonunion. Conclusion: Semicircular ESF combined with open surgical reduction can be used to successfully repair metaphyseal and diaphyseal femoral fractures in young growing dogs.     

Biomechanical Analysis of Unilateral External Skeletal Fixators Combined with IM-Pin and Without IM-Pin Using Finite-Element Method

OBJECTIVES: To determine if a unilateral external skeletal fixator (ESF) with a carbon fiber connecting rod (IMEX SK) without an intramedullary (IM)-pin is mechanically comparable with a unilateral ESF with a stainless-steel connecting rod (IMEX KE) with an IM-pin. STUDY DESIGN: Finite-element method (FEM)-computer simulation. METHODS: FEM models were validated by comparison against data from mechanical testing. Three-dimensional FEM models of a femur with a mid-diaphyseal fracture with a 20 mm gap were developed with 4 unilateral external skeletal fixator devices (6-pin KE, 6-pin KE IM-pin, 6-pin SK, and 6-pin SK IM-pin). A 300 N load was applied to the femur at the proximal end in a direction of theta = 10 degrees distally and phi = 10 degrees laterally cranially. Relative displacements in x-, y- and z-directions at the gap were obtained and the overall stiffness was calculated as 300 N/total displacement. Load transfer at the pin-bone interface (PBI) was assessed by determining the von Mises stress maxima at the PBI-related nodes. RESULTS: The 6-pin SK had superior mechanical performance compared with the 6-pin KE by exhibiting smaller displacements in all directions and higher stiffness. Compared with the 6-pin KE IM-pin, the 6-pin SK (without IM-pin) was superior in craniocaudal and lateromedial displacements, but inferior in axial displacements, overall stiffness and von Mises stress maxima. The 6-pin SK IM-pin was superior to the 6-pin KE IM-pin based on smaller displacements and higher stiffness. CONCLUSIONS: Although the SK device had superior mechanical performance compared with a KE device in a unilateral configuration, the addition of an IM-pin continues to be a powerful method of enhancing mechanical performance of either IMEX SK or IMEX KE unilateral constructs in clinical cases. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on the results of this FEM study we recommend the use of the "tied-in" IM-pin with the ESF clinically when striving for high rigidity. In less challenging situations, a unilateral SK ESF without IM-pin might provide sufficient rigidity for a successful fracture repair.