Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21(03): 185-194
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1617359
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Mechanical properties of 18 different AO bone plates and the clamp-rod internal fixation system tested on a gap model construct

K. Zahn
1   Clinic of Veterinary Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany
,
R. Frei
2   AO Research Institute, Davos, Switzerland
,
D. Wunderle
2   AO Research Institute, Davos, Switzerland
,
B. Linke
2   AO Research Institute, Davos, Switzerland
,
K. Schwieger
2   AO Research Institute, Davos, Switzerland
,
B. Guerguiev
2   AO Research Institute, Davos, Switzerland
,
O. Pohler
3   Synthes, Oberdorf, Switzerland
,
U. Matis
1   Clinic of Veterinary Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 02 February 2008

Accepted 01 April 2008

Publication Date:
12 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objective: To compare the stiffness and strength of AO bone plates (DCP, LC-DCP, VCP, RCP, and LP) and the Clamp-Rod Internal Fixation System (CRIF). Study design: In vitro. Sample size: 12 individual implants of 18 plate dimensions and four sizes of CRIF, each corresponding to 2.0, 2.4/2.7, 3.5, or 4.5 mm screw sizes. Methods: Implant-constructs of each plate and CRIF were created using Canevasit rods as a bone substitute in an unstable gap fracture model. Six implantconstructs of each type were tested under single cycle four-point bending loading, and six were tested under single cycle torsional loading until permanent plastic deformation occurred. Results: Torsional stiffness and yield load of the DCP were always significantly greater than the CRIF within the same group. Bending properties of the 2.0 DCP were not significantly different to the 2.0 CRIF. The 2.7 DCP had significantly higher bending values than the 2.7 CRIF. The bending stiffness of the 3.5 DCP and 4.5 DCP was significantly less than their CRIF counterparts. While the bending yield load of the 3.5 DCP was significantly greater than the 3.5 CRIF, the bending yield load of the 4.5 DCP was significantly less than the 4.5 CRIF. Conclusion: A weakness was found in the torsional resistance of the CRIF constructs compared to the DCP constructs. Clinical significance: Bone holding power and applied screw torque should be considered when using the CRIF system in clinical application.

Keywords

Plates - CRIF - stiffness - strength - Mechanical testing
 

  • References

  • 1 Perren SM, Cordey J, Rahn BA. et al. Early temporary porosis of bone induced by internal fixation implants.. Clin Orthoped Rel Res 1988; 232: 139-151.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Jain R, Podworny N, Hupel TM. et al. Influence of plate design on cortical bone perfusion and fracture healing in canine segmental tibial fractures.. J Orthop Trauma 1999; 13: 178-186.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ramotowski W, Granowski R. Zespol - An original method of stable osteosynthesis.. Clin Orthoped Rel Res 1991; 272: 67-75.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Perren SM. The concept of biological plating using the limited contact-dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP). Scientific background, design and application.. Injury 1991; 22: 1-41.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Frigg R. Locking compression plate (LCP). An osteosynthesis plate based on the dynamic compression plate and the point contact fixator (PCFix). Injury 2001; 32: 63-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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
  • 7 Zahn K, Matis U. Der Clamp Rod Internal Fixator zur Behandlung von Pseudarthrosen beim Kleintier.. OP-Journal 2004; 20: 128-132.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Zahn K, Matis U. The clamp rod internal fixator - application and results in 120 small animal fracture patients.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2004; 3: 110-120.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Augat P, Merk J, Ignatius A. et al. Early, full weightbearing with flexible fixation delays fracture healing.. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1996; 328: 194-202.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hulse D, Hyman B. Biomechanics of fracture fixation failure.. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1991; 21: 647-667.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Matis U, Köstlin RG, Brunnberg L. Fehler bei der Frakturbehandlung beim Kleintier und deren Folgen.. Berl Münch Tierärztl Wschr 1985; 98: 173-180.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 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
  • 13 Nye R, Egger E, Huhta J. et al. Acute failure characteristics of six methods for internal fixation of canine femoral oblique fractures.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1996; 9: 106-110.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Pohler O. Complications of internal fixation.. In: Brinker WO, Olmstead ML, Sumner-Smith G, Prieur WD. Manual of internal fixation in small animals. Berlin: Springer; 1998: 109-115.
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Stoffel K, Klaue K, Perren SM. Functional load of plates in fracture fixation in vivo and its correlate in bone healing.. Injury 2000; 31: 37-50.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Braden TD, Eicker SW, Abdinoor D. et al. Characteristics of 1000 femur fractures in the dog and cat.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1995; 8: 203-209.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Johnson AL, Smith CW, Schaeffer DJ. Fragment reconstruction and bone plate fixation versus bridging plate fixation for treating highly comminuted femoral fractures in dogs: 35 cases (1987-1997).. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1998; 213: 1157-1161.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Reems MR, Beale BS, Hulse DA. Use of a platerod construct and principles of biological osteosynthesis for repair of diaphyseal fractures in dogs and cats: 47 cases (1994-2001).. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003; 223: 330-335.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Johnston SA, Lancaster RL, Hubbard RP. et al. A biomechanical comparison of 7-hole 3.5 mm broad and 5-hole 4.5 mm narrow dynamic compression plates.. Vet Surg 1991; 20: 235-239.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Silbernagel JT, Johnson AL, Pijanowski G. et al. A mechanical comparison of 4.5 mm narrow and 3.5 mm broad plating systems for stabilization of gapped fracture models.. Vet Surg 2004; 33: 173-179.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Brinker WO. Guidelines for selecting plate and screw size. In: Brinker WO, Olmstead ML, Sumner-Smith G, Prieur WD. Manual of internal fixation in small animals.. Berlin: Springer; 1998. 263 271.
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Haerdi C, Costa RD, Auer JA. et al. Mechanical comparison of 3 different clamp and 2 different rod types of a new veterinary internal fixation system, 4.5/5.5-mm Vet Fix.. Vet Surg 2003; 32: 431-438.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Cordey J. Introduction: Basic concepts and definitions in mechanics.. Injury 2000; 31: 1-13.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 ASTM Designation: F382-98a. Standard specification and test method for metallic bone plates.. In: Annual book of ASTM Standards 1999. American Society for Testing and Materials.
    PubMed
  • 25 ISO 9585. Implants for surgery - Determination of bending strength and stiffness of bone plates. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. 1990 .
    PubMed
  • 26 Piermattei DL, Flo GL. Brinker, Piermattei, and Flos Handbook of small animal orthopedics and fracture repair.. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1997. .
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Bernarde A, Diop A, Maurel N. et al. An in vitro biomechanical study of bone plate and interlocking nail in a canine diaphyseal femoral fracture model.. Vet Surg 2001; 30: 397-408.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Gautier E, Perren SM, Cordey J. Strain distribution in plated and unplated sheep tibia. An in vivo experiment.. Injury 2000; 31: 37-44.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Abel EW, Sun J. Mechanical evaluation of a new minimum-contact plate for internal fracture fixation.. J Orthop Trauma 1998; 12: 382-386.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Brinker WO, Verstraete MC, Soutas-Little RW. Stiffness studies on various configurations and types of external fixators.. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1985; 21: 801-808.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Dyce J, Houlton JEF. Use of reconstruction plates for repair of acetabular fractures in 16 dogs.. J Small Anim Pract 1993; 34: 547-53.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lewis DD, van Ee RT, Oakes MG. et al. Use of reconstruction plates for stabilization of fractures and osteotomies involving the supracondylar region of the femur.. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1993; 29: 171-178.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Fruchter AM, Holmberg DL. Mechanical analysis of the veterinary cuttable plate.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1991; 4: 116-119.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Zahn K, Matis U. Do we have a suitable plate for long-bone fractures in cats?. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2005; 18: A15.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Bruese S, Dee J, Prieur WD. Internal fixation with a veterinary cuttable plate in small animals.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1989; 1: 40-46.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 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
  • 37 Muir P, Johnson KA, Markel MD. Area moment of inertia for comparison of implant cross-sectional geometry and bending stiffness.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1995; 8: 146-152.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar