Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24(06): 408-417
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-11-04-0061
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Single cycle to failure in bending of three standard and five locking plates and plate constructs

C. A. Blake
1   Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, Department of Clinical Sciences, North Grafton, Massachusetts, USA
,
R. J. Boudrieau
1   Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, Department of Clinical Sciences, North Grafton, Massachusetts, USA
,
B. S. Torrance
1   Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, Department of Clinical Sciences, North Grafton, Massachusetts, USA
,
E. K. Tacvorian
2   Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
,
J. B. Cabassu
1   Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, Department of Clinical Sciences, North Grafton, Massachusetts, USA
,
G. R. Gaudette
2   Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
,
M. P. Kowaleski
1   Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, Department of Clinical Sciences, North Grafton, Massachusetts, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 24 April 2011

Accepted: 29 July 2011

Publication Date:
17 December 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objective: To evaluate the biomechanical properties of standard and locking plates in bending. We hypothesised that titanium (Ti) constructs would have the greatest deformation and that String of Pearl (SOP) constructs would have the greatest strength and stiffness, and would behave differently compared to plates alone.

Methods: Dynamic compression plates (DCP), stainless steel (SS) limited contact (LC)-DCP®, Ti LC-DCP, locking compression plates (LCP), 10 mm and 11 mm advanced locking plate system (ALPS 10 / 11), SOP and Fixin plates were evaluated individually and as constructs applied to a validated bone model simulating a bridging osteosynthesis. Bending stiffness and strength were compared using one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey, and un-paired t-test (p <0.05).

Results: The SOP plates had significantly greater stiffness than all other plates Ti LCDCP, ALPS 10 and Fixin plates had significantly lower stiffness than all other plates. The SOP constructs had the highest mean bending stiffness, and strength that was significantly different from only the Ti LC-DCP, ALPS 10 and Fixin constructs. The ALPS 10 constructs had the lowest mean bending stiffness, and strength that was significantly different from only ALPS 11 and SOP constructs. Comparison of bending structural stiffness of plates versus constructs showed a significant difference in all plate pairs except for the DCP and ALPS 10.

Clinical relevance: Due to differing plate construct properties inherent to these diverse implant systems, identical approaches to fracture management and plate application cannot be applied.

Presented at the 38th Annual Conference of the Veterinary Orthopedic Society, Snowmass, CO, USA March 6, 2011 (Mark S. Bloomberg Memorial Research Award recipient).

Keywords

Biomechanics - bone plate - four-point bending - in vitro
 

  • References

  • 1 Schatzker J. Changes in the AO/ASIF principles and methods. Injury 1995; 26 (Suppl. 02) S-B51-B56.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Perren SM. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. The scientific basis of biological internal fixation: choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84–B: 1093-1110.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Miclau T, Martin RE. The evolution of modern plate osteosynthesis. Injury 1997; 28 (Suppl. 01) A3-A6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Perren SM, Cordey J, Rahn BA. et al Early temporary porosis of bone induced by internal fixation implants. A reaction to necrosis, not to stress protection?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; 232: 139-151.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hidaka S, Gustilo RB. Refracture of bones of the forearm after plate removal. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984; 66: 1241-1243.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Klein P, Schell H, Streitparth F. et al The initial phase of fracture healing is specifically sensitive to mechanical conditions. J Orthop Res 2003; 21: 662-669.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hankemeier S, Grässel S, Plenz G. et al Alteration of fracture stability influences chondrogenesis, osteo-genesis and immigration of macrophages. J Orthop Res 2001; 19: 531-538.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Schell H, Epari DR, Kassi JP. et al The course of bone healing is influenced by the initial shear fixation stability. J Orthop Res 2005; 23: 1022-1028.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Valentini R, Martinelli B, Cosmi F. et al Mechanical behavior of one internal fixator (O’nil plate and screws system): A finite element study and clinical experiences. Tech Orthop 2007; 22: 173-180.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Miller DL, Goswami T. A review of locking compression plates biomechanics and their advantages as internal fixators in fracture healing. Clin Biomech 2007; 22: 1049-1062.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Miclau T, Remiger A, Tepic S. et al A mechanical comparison of the dynamic compression plate, limited-contact dynamic compression plate, and point contact fixator. J Orthop Trauma 1995; 9: 17-22.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Perren SM, Klaue K, Pohler O. et al The limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP). Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1990; 109: 304-310.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Borgeaud M, Cordey J, Leyvraz PF. et al Mechanical analysis of the bone to plate interface of the LCDCP and of the PC-FIX on human femora. Injury 2000; 31: S-C29-C36.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tepic S, Perren SM. The biomechanics of the PCFix internal fixator. Injury 1995; 26 (Suppl. 02) B5-B10.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Frigg R. Development of the locking compression plate. Injury 2003; 34 (Suppl. 02) B6-10.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Wagner M. General principles for the clinical use of LCP. Injury 2003; 34 (Suppl. 02) B31-B42.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gauthier E, Sommer C. Guidelines for the clinical application of the LCP. Injury 2003; 34: S-B63-S-B76..
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Stoffel K, Dieter U, Stachowiak G. et al Biomechanical testing of the LCP- how can stability in locked internal fixators be controlled?. Injury 2003; 34: S-B11-B19.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ness MG. The effect of bending and twisting on the stiffness and strength of the 3.5 SOP implant. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 132-136.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ness MG. Repair of Y-T humeral fractures in the dog using paired ‘String of Pearls’ locking plates. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 492-497.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Boudrieau RJ. The advanced locking plate system (ALPS): Design rationale, biomechanics and early clinical use. Proceedings of the 2009 ACVS Veterinary Symposium. Washington, DC, USA: 2009. October 8–10 482-486.
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Petazzoni M. Fixin: Design rationale and biomechanical distinctive features illustrated with clinical cases. Proceedings of the 2009 ACVS Veterinary Symposium. Washington DC, USA: 2009. October 8–10 499-504.
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Petazzoni M, Urizzi A Verdonck. et al. Fixin internal fixator: Concept and technique. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2010; 23: 250-253.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 DeTora M, Kraus K. Mechanical testing of 3.5 mm locking and non-locking bone plates. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21: 318-322.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Little FM, Hill CM, Kageyama T. et al Bending properties of stainless steel dynamic compression plates and limited contact dynamic compression plates. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2001; 14: 64-68.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Strom AM, Garcia TC, Jandrey K. et al In vitro mechanical comparison of 2.0 and 2.4 limited-contact dynamic compression plates and 2.0 dynamic compression plates of different thicknesses. Vet Surg 2010; 39: 824-828.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hammel SP, Pluhar GE, Novo RE. et al Fatigue analysis of plates used for fracture stabilization in small dogs and cats. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 573-578.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Zahn K, Frei R, Wunderle D. et al Mechanical properties of 18 different AO bone plates and the clamp-rod internal fixation system tested on a gap model construct. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21: 185-194.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Aguila AZ, Manos JM, Orlansky AS. et al In vitro biomechanical comparison of limited contact dynamic compression plate and locking compression plate. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2005; 18: 220-226.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Filipowicz D, Lanz O, McLaughlin R. et al A bio-mechanical comparison of 3.5 locking compression plate fixation to 3.5 limited contact dynamic compression plate fixation in a canine cadaveric distal humeral metaphyseal gap model. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 270-277.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Fitzpatrick N, Lewis D, Cross A. A biomechanical comparison of external skeletal fixation and plating for the stabilization of ilial osteotomies in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21: 349-357.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Arnott JL, Bailey R, Shields A. et al An in vitro comparison of a 2.7/3.5mm hybrid plate alone and combined with crossed k-wires for canine pancarpal arthrodesis. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21: 307-311.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ahmad M, Nanda R, Bajwa AS. et al Biomechanical testing of the locking compression plate: when does the distance between bone and implant significantly reduce construct stability?. Injury 2007; 38: 358-364.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Specification and Test Method for Metallic Bone Plates, ASTM F382-99 (Reapproved 2003). In: 2003 Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West Conshoohocken, PA: ASTM. 2003
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Acker ML, Torrance B, Kowaleski MP. et al Structural properties of synthetic bone models compared to native canine bone. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European College of Veterinary Surgeons Helsinki, Finland: 2010. July 1–3 150-151.
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Haerdi-Landerer C, Steiner A, Linke B. et al Comparison of double dynamic compression plating versus two configurations of an internal veterinary fixation device: results of in vitro mechanical testing using a bone substitute. Vet Surg 2002; 31: 582-588.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Serhan H, Slivka M, Albert T. et al Is galvanic corrosion between titanium alloy and stainless steel spinal implants a clinical concern?. Spine J 2004; 4: 379-387.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Hol PJ, Molster A, Gjerdet NR. Should the galvanic combination of titanium and stainless steel surgical implants be avoided?. Injury 2008; 39: 161-169.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Kemp TJ, Bachus KN, Nairn JA. et al Functional trade-offs in the limb bones of dogs selected for running versus fighting. J Exp Biol 2005; 208: 3475-3482.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Cabassu JB, Kowaleski MP, Shorinko JK. et al Single cycle to failure in torsion of three standard and five locking plate constructs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24: 418-425.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Gautier E, Perren SM, Cordey J. Strain distribution in plated and unplated sheep tibia an in vivo experiment. Injury 2000; 31 (Suppl. 03) C37-C44.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Stoffel K, Klaue K, Perren SM. Functional load of plates in fracture fixation in vivo and its correlate in bone healing. Injury 2000; 31 (Suppl. 02) S-B37-B50.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar