Extraction resistance of 2.7 mm medio-lateral-placed cortical screws compared with 2.7 mm and 3.5 mm cranio-caudal-placed cortical screws in canine cadaver radii

L. L. Linn; M. C. Rochat; G. H. Brusewitz; M. E. Payton

doi:10.1055/s-0038-1632665

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Table of Contents

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2001; 14(01): 1-6
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632665

Original Research

Schattauer GmbH

Extraction resistance of 2.7 mm medio-lateral-placed cortical screws compared with 2.7 mm and 3.5 mm cranio-caudal-placed cortical screws in canine cadaver radii

Authors

L. L. Linn

¹College of Veterinary Medicine, Stillwater, OK, USA
M. C. Rochat

¹College of Veterinary Medicine, Stillwater, OK, USA
G. H. Brusewitz

²College of Agricultural Sciences & Natural Resources, Stillwater, OK, USA
M. E. Payton

³College of Mathematics and Statistics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

Abstract

Summary

Medial placement of a 2.7 mm dynamic compression plate (DCP) has been proposed as an alternative to cranial placement of a 3.5 DCP for the treatment of mid-diaphyseal to metaphyseal radial fractures in dogs (13, 17). The purpose of this study was to compare the extraction strength of 2.7 mm screws placed in a medio-lateral (ML) plane with both 2.7 mm and 3.5 mm screws placed in a cranio-caudal (CC) plane in canine cadaver radii.

Comparisons between these three screw orientations were evaluated by placing six screws (in vitro) in each of 16 paired radii and then conducting a standard extraction test (also known as a pull-out test). One radius of each pair received 2.7 mm ML screws (n = 48), the opposite radius received either 2.7mm CC or 3.5 mm CC screws (n = 24 each). Extraction strength was compared by screw position within a bone and between planes of placement within matched pairs.

Screw position within a bone did not have a significant effect on strength comparisons. The number six (most distal) screw was consistently and significantly weaker than the other screws without regard to plane of placement. Medio-lateral screws were significantly stronger than both 2.7 mm and 3.5 mm screws placed in a cranio-caudal plane. Medial placement of a 2.7 mm dynamic compression plate (DCP) is a viable alternative to cranial placement of a 3.5 DCP for treatment of mid-diaphyseal to distal radial fractures in dogs, with regard to screw purchase and holding strength.

A comparison of extraction strength of 2.7 mm screws placed in a medio-lateral (ML) plane was made with both mm and 3.5 mm screws placed in a cranio-caudal (CC) plane in canine cadaver radii. Medio-lateral screws were significantly stronger than both mm and 3.5 mm screws placed in a cranio-caudal plane. With regard to screw purchase and holding strength, medial placement of a 2.7 mm dynamic compression plate (DCP) is a viable alternative to cranial placement of a 3.5 DCP for treatment of mid-diaphyseal to distal radial fractures in dogs.

Keywords

Extraction - cortical screws - placement - canine

Full Text

References

REFERENCES
1 Atilola MAO, Sumner-Smith G. Nonunion fractures in dogs. J Vet Orthop 1984; 03: 21.
2 Bradley RL, Rouse GP. External skeletal fixation using the through-and-through Kirshner-Ehmer splint. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1980; 16: 523.
3 Brinker WO, Piermattei DL, Flo GL. Fractures of the radius and ulna. In: Handbook of Small Animal Orthopedics and Fracture Treatment. Brinker WO, Piermattei DL, Flo GL. (eds). Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1983: 154.
4 Boudrieau RJ. Principles of screw and plate fixation. Seminars in Veterinary Medicine and Surgery (Small Animal) 1991; 06: 86.
5 Egger EL. Fractures of the radius and ulna. In: Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. 2nd Edn. Slatter DH. (ed). Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1993: 1736.
6 Hearn TC, Szalai JP, Surowiak JF, Schatzker J. Sample size estimates for the use of human bone in the experimental study of cancellous screw extraction mechanics. J Biomechanics 1996; 29: 569-72.
7 Huss BT, Anderson MA, Wagner-Mann CC, Payne JT. Effects of temperature and storage time on pin pull-out testing in harvested canine femurs. Am J Vet Res 1995; 56: 715-9.
8 Johnson AL, Kneller SK, Weigel RM. Radial and tibial fracture repair with external skeletal fixation: Effects of fracture type, reduction, and complications on healing. Vet Surg 1989; 18: 367.
9 Lappin MR, Aron DN, Herron HL. et al. Fractures of the radius and ulna in the dog. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1983; 19: 643.
10 Leonard EP. Radius and ulna. In: Orthopedic Surgery of the Dog and Cat. ed 2. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1971: 149.
11 Phillips IR. A survey of bone fractures in the dog and cat. J Small Anim Pract 1979; 20: 661.
12 Rudd RG, Whitehair JG. Fractures of the Radius and Ulna. Veterinary Clinics of North America 1992; 22: 135-47.
13 Sardinas JC, Montavon PM. Use of a medial bone plate for repair of radius and ulna fractures in dogs and cats: A report of 22 cases. Vet Surgery 1997; 26: 108-13.
14 Sumner-Smith G. Bone plating for radial fractures in small dogs. Mod Vet Pract 1970; 03: 30.
15 Sumner-Smith G, Cawley AJ. Nonunion of fractures in the dog. J Small Anim Pract 1970; 11: 311.
16 Vangsness CT, Carter DR, Frankel VH. In vitro evaluation of the loosening characteristics of self-tapped and non-self-tapped cortical bone screws. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1981; 157: 279-86.
17 Wallace MK, Boudrieau RJ, Hyodo K, Torzilli PS. Mechanical evaluation of three methods of plating distal radial osteotomies. Vet Surg 1992; 21: 99-106.