Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632697
The effect of contouring the connecting bar in an acrylic-pin external fixator
Evaluation of the effects on ultimate strength and stiffness of contoured acrylic columns placed under axial compressionPublication History
Received
07 March 2000
Accepted
17 May 2001
Publication Date:
09 February 2018 (online)
This studies the effects of contouring of acrylic column when placed in axial compression. Six different angles were studied, 0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 90° and a 90° with a 2.0 mm connecting bar. Each column was then placed under axial compression using a biomechanical testing machine. As the angle of the contour increased there was a significant decrease in the ultimate stiffness and ultimate strength of the columns. However, the amount of force required to cause catastrophic failure in any of the group was still high (stiffness 300 N/mm ± 70, ultimate strength 1032 N ± 139) which may not be reached in a physiological setting. When using a severe angulation of the column the using of a connecting bar will significantly increase both stiffness and strength of the acrylic.
Abstract presented at ACVS Conference in 1998 and Veterinary Orthopedic Symposium 1999, Abstract in Veterinary Surgery 1998; 27: 508
-
REFERENCES
- 1 Aron D, Johnson A, Palmer R. Biologic Strategies and a Balanced Concept for repair of Highly Comminuted Long Bone Fractures. The Compendium 1995; 17 (01) 35-48.
- 2 Boudrieau R, Sinibaldi R. Principles of Long Bone Fracture Management. Seminars in Veterinary Medicine and Surgery (Small Animal) 1992; 07 (01) 44-62.
- 3 Buovy B, Markel M, Chelikani S, Egger E, Piermattei D, Vanderby R. Ex Vivo Bio-mechanics of Kirschner-Ehmer External Skeletal Fixation Applied to Canine Tibiae. Vet Surg 1993; 22 (03) 194-207.
- 4 Davis M, Schulz K, Fawcett A, Slater M, Roths J. Flexural and Torsional Analysis of Five Acrylics for Use in External Skeletal Fixation. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1998; 11 (01) 53-8.
- 5 Egger E. Static Strength evaluation of Six External Skeletal Fixation Configurations. Vet Surg 1983; 12 (03) 130-6.
- 6 Egger E. Instrumentation for External Fixation. Vet Clinics of NA: Small Animal 1992; 22 (01) 19-43.
- 7 Huber D, Egger E, James S. A Mechanical Comparison of the Fixation Pin-Connecting Bar Junction of Kirschner-Ehmer and Acrylic External Fixators. Abstract in Veterinary Surgery 1998; 27 (05) 509.
- 8 Kern D, Smith M, Stevenson S, Moon M, Saunders G, Irby M, Dyer K. Evaluation of three fixation techniques for repair of mandibular fractures in dogs. JAVMA 1995; 206 (12) 1883-9.
- 9 Langley-Hobbs S, Carmichael S, McCartney W. Use of external skeletal fixators in therepair of femoral fractures in cats. Journal of Small Animal Practice 1996; 37: 95-101.
- 10 Okrasinski E, Pardo A, Graehler R. Biomechanical Evaluation of Acrylic External Skeletal Fixation in Dogs and Cats. JAVMA 1991; 199 (11) 1590-3.
- 11 Shahar R. Relative Stiffness and Stress of Type I and Type II External Fixators: Acrylic versus Stainless-Steel Connecting Bars – A Theoretical Approach. Vet Surg 2000; 29 (01) 59-69.
- 12 Shahar R. Evaluation of Stiffness and Stress of External Fixators with Curved Acrylic Connecting Bars. Vet Comp Orthop and Traumat 2000; 02: 65-72.
- 13 Wilier R, Egger E, Histand M. Comparison of Stainless Steel versus Acrylic for the Connecting Bar of External Skeletal Fixators. JAAHA 1991; 2-7: 541-8.