Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2013; 26(03): 172-176
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-12-03-0047
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Comparison of the axial stiffness of carbon composite and aluminium alloy circular external skeletal fixator rings

C. M. Gauthier
1   College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
,
M. P. Kowaleski
2   Department of Clinical Sciences, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, Massachusetts, USA
,
P. D. Gerard
3   Department of Mathematical Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA
,
G. L. Rovesti
1   College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 29 March 2012

Accepted 23 April 2012

Publication Date:
19 December 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the axial stiffness of aluminium alloy and carbon composite single-ring constructs.

Methods: Single-ring constructs were made with rings of different material compositions (aluminium alloy and carbon composite), diameters (55 mm, 85 mm, and 115 mm), and thicknesses (6 mm for the single-ring, 12 mm for the double-ring) with all other components remaining constant. Stiffness of each construct was determined under loading in axial compression with a materials testing machine. The axial stiffness of each group was compared using a three-factor factorial analysis of variance investigating all main effects and interactions between ring diameter, ring thickness, and ring material composition; p <0.05 was considered significant.

Results: Carbon composite constructs were 16-55% as stiff as corresponding aluminium alloy constructs. Within each combination of ring material composition and ring diameter, stiffness did not significantly increase when the ring thickness was doubled. Within each combination of ring material composition and ring thickness, stiffness significantly decreased with increased ring diameter.

Clinical significance: Aluminium alloy rings were found to be significantly stiffer than carbon composite rings. Although the carbon composite rings were considerably less stiff, clinical recommendations cannot be made from a single-ring in vitro analysis. Further studies are needed to evaluate the behaviour of these rings in vivo.

Keywords

biomechanics - circular external skeletal fixator - axial - compression
 

  • References

  • 1 Lewis DD, Radasch RM, Beale BS. et al. Initial clinical experience with the IMEX™ circular external skeletal fixation system - part I: Use in fractures and arthrodeses. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1999; 12: 108-117.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lewis DD, Radasch RM, Beale BS. et al. Initial clinical experience with the IMEX™ circular external skeletal fixation system - part II: Use in bone lengthening and correction of angular and rotational deformities. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1999; 12: 118-127.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rovesti GL, Bosio B, Marcellin-Little DJ. Management of 49 antebrachial and crural fractures in dogs using circular external fixators. J Small Anim Pract 2007; 49: 194-200.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rovesti GL, Schwarz G, Bogoni P. Treatment of 30 angular limb deformities of the antebrachium and the crus in the dog using circular external fixators. The Open Veterinary Science Journal 2009; 3: 41-54.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Watson MA, Mathias KJ, Maffulli N. External ring fixators: an overview. Proc Instn Mech Engrs 2000; 214: 459-470.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lewis DD, Bronson DG, Samchukov ML. et al. Biomechanics of circular external skeletal fixation. Vet Surg 1998; 27: 454-464.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Baran O, Havitcioglu H, Tatari H. et al. The stiffness characteristics of hybrid Ilizarov fixators. J Biomech 2008; 41: 2960-2963.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Gasser B, Boman B, Wyder D. et al. Stiffness characteristics of the circular Ilizarov device as opposed to conventional external fixators. J Biomech Eng 1990; 112: 15-21.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hudson CC, Pozzi A, Lewis DD. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis: Applications and techniques in dogs and cats. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22: 175-182.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lewis DD, Bronson DG, Cross AR. et al. Axial characteristics of circular external skeletal fixator single ring constructs. Vet Surg 2001; 30: 386-394.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Tosborvorn S, Cheechareon S, Ruttanuchun K. et al. Mechanical evaluation of aluminum alloy ring fixator. J Med Assoc Thai 2006; 89: 1896-1901.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Nele U, Maffulli N, Pintore E. Biomechanics of radiotransparent circular external fixators. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994; 308: 68-72.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kummer FJ. Technical note: evaluation of new Ilizarov rings. Bull Hosp Jt Dis Orthop Inst 1990; 50: 88-90.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cross AR, Lewis DD, Murphy ST. et al. Effects of ring diameter and wire tension on the axial biomechanics of four-ring circular external skeletal fixators constructs. Am J Vet Res 2001; 62: 1025-1030.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kummer FJ. Biomechanics of the Ilizarov external fixators. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992; 280: 11-14.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bronson DG, Samchukov ML, Birch JG. et al. Stability of external circular fixation: a multi-variable biomechanical analysis. Clin Biomech 1998; 13: 441-448.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Grivas TB, Magnissalis EA. The use of twin-ring Ilizarov external fixator constructs: application and biomechanical proof-of principle with possible clinical indications. J Orthop Surg Res 2011; 6: 41.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar