Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25(04): 273-280
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-11-01-0011
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

In vitro biomechanical evaluation and comparison of a new prototype locking plate and a limited-contact self compression plate for equine fracture repair

D. D. Quinteros
1   Orthopedic Research Laboratory, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, Massachussetts, USA
,
J. M. García-López
1   Orthopedic Research Laboratory, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, Massachussetts, USA
,
G. A. Abuja
1   Orthopedic Research Laboratory, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, Massachussetts, USA
,
M. Tarkanian
2   Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachussetts, USA
,
L. S. Maranda
3   Division of Clinical Research, Department of Pediatrics, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachussetts, USA
,
K. Bubeck
1   Orthopedic Research Laboratory, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, Massachussetts, USA
,
M. P. Kowaleski
1   Orthopedic Research Laboratory, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, Massachussetts, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 25 January 2011

Accepted 24 February 2012

Publication Date:
19 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objective: To determine if the mechanical properties (strength and stiffness) of a new prototype 4.5 mm broad locking plate (NP-LP) are comparable with those of a traditional 4.5 mm broad limited-contact self compression plate (LC-SCP), and to compare the bending and torsional properties of the NP-LP and LCSCP when used in osteotomized equine third metacarpal bones (MC3).

Methods: The plates alone were tested in four-point bending single cycle to failure. The MC3-plate constructs were created with middiaphyseal osteotomies with a 1 cm gap. Constructs were tested in four-point bending single cycle to failure, four-point bending cyclic fatigue, and torsion single cycle to failure.

Results: There were not any significant differences in bending strength and stiffness found between the two implants. The MC3-NP-LP construct was significantly stiffer than the MC3-LC-SCP in bending. No other biomechanical differences were found in bending, yield load in torsion, or mean composite rigidity. Mean cycles to failure for bending fatigue testing were similar for both constructs.

Clinical significance: The NP-LP was comparable to the LC-SCP in intrinsic, as well as structural properties. The NP-LP construct was more rigid than the LC-SCP construct under four-point bending, and both constructs behaved similarly under four-point bending cyclic fatigue testing and torsion single cycle to failure. The new NP-LP implant fixation is biomechanically comparable to the LC-SCP in a simulated MC3 fracture.

Keywords

Locking plates - locking screws - equine - fracture repair
 

  • References

  • 1 Wagner M. General principles for the clinical use of the LCP. Injury 2003; 34 Suppl 2 B31-B42.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Schelegel U, Perren SM. Surgical aspects of infection involving osteosynthesis implants: implant design and resistance to local infection. Injury 2006; 37 Suppl 2 S67-S73.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Tong GO. History and evolution of MIPO. In: Tong GO, Bavonratanavech S. editors. AO Manual of Fracture Management, Minimally Invasive Plate Osteosynthesis (MIPO). Davos, Switzerland: AO Publishing, Thieme; 2007. pg. 3-7.
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Auer JA. Metacarpal (-tarsal) shaft. In: Fackelman G, Auer JA, Numamaker DM. editors. AO principles of Equine osteosynthesis. Davos, Switzerland: AO Publishing, Thieme; 1999. pg. 194.
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Bischofberger AS, Fürst A, Auer J. et al. Surgical management of complete diaphyseal third metacarpal and metatarsal bone fractures: clinical outcome in 10 mature horses and 11 foals. Equine Vet J 2009; 41: 465-473.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Florin M, Arzdorf M, Linke B. et al. Assessment of stiffness and strength of 4 different implants available for equine fracture treatment: A study on a 20° oblique long-bone fracture model using a bone substitute. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 231-238.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sommer C. Biomechanics and clinical application principles of locking plates. Suomen Ortopedia Ja Traumatologia 2006; 29: 20-24.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cronier P, Pietu G. The concept of locking plates. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2010; 96: S17-S36.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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
  • 10 Aguila AZ, Manos JM, Orlansky AS. 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
  • 11 Sod GA, Mitchell CF, Hubert JD. In vitro biomechanical comparison of locking compression plate fixation and limited-contact dynamic compression plate fixation of osteotomized equine third metacarpal bones. Vet Surg 2008; 37: 283-288.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sommer PR, Oldenburg GV, Procter P. LCPTM: Screw Extraction problem. Stryker Osteosynthesis. March 2006 Literature Number: 984002, LOT A1106.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bae JH, Oh JK, Oh CW. et al. Technical difficulties of removal of locking screw after locking compression plating. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009; 129: 91-95.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Standard specification and test method for metallic bone plates, ASTM. F 382-99 (re-approved 2003)el, in 2003 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for testing and Materials West Conshohocken, PA, ASTM: 2003
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Detora MD, Kraus KH. Mechanical testing of 3. 5mm locking and non-locking bone plates Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21: 318-322.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lopez MJ, Wilson DG, Vanderby JR. R. et al. An in vitro biomechanical comparison of an interlocking nail system and dynamic compression plate fixation of ostectomized equine third metacarpal bones. Vet Surg 1999; 28: 333-340.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sod GA, Hubert JD, Matin GS. et al. An in vitro biomechanical comparison of a limited-contact dynamic compression plate fixation with a dynamic compression plate fixation of osteotomized equine third metacarpal bones. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 579-586.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rybicki EF, Mills EJ, Turner AS. et al. In vivo and analytical studies of forces and moments in equine long bones. J Biomechanics 1977; 10: 701-705.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Akeson WH, Woo SL, Rutherford L. et al. The effects of rigidity of internal fixation plates on long bone remodeling. A biomechanical and quantitative histological study. Acta Orthop Scand 1976; 47: 241-249.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Carter DR, Shimaoka EE, Harris WH. et al. Changes in long-bone structural properties during the first 8 weeks of plate implantation. J Orthop Res 1984; 2: 80-89.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ruedi TP, Buckley RE, Moran CG. In: AO Principles of Fracture Management. Volume 1: Principles, Second expanded edition. Davos, Switzerland: AO Publishing, Thieme; 2007. pg. 34.
  • 22 Lopez MJ, Wilson DG, Vanderby R. et al. An in vitro biomechanical comparison of two interlocking-nail systems for fixation of ostectomized equine third metacarpal bones. Vet Surg 2001; 30: 246-252.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Radcliffe RM, Lopez MJ, Turner TA. et al. An in vitro biomechanical comparison of interlocking nail constructs and double plating for fixation of diaphyseal femur fractures in immature horses. Vet Surg 2001; 30: 179-190.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 McDuffee LA, Stover SM, Coleman K. Limb loading activity of adult horses confined to box stalls in a equine hospital barn. Am J Vet Res 2000; 3: 234-237.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sod GA, Hubert JD, Matin GS. et al. An in vitro biomechanical comparison of a prototype equine metacarpal dynamic compression plate fixation with double dynamic compression plate fixation of osteotomized equine third metacarpal bones. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 594-603.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Sod GA, Hubert JD, Martin GS. et al. An in vitro evaluation of plate luting using osteotomized equine third metacarpal bones with a limited contact-dynamic compression plate. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 587-593.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Shorafa WM, Feaster JP, Ott EA. Horse metacarpal bone: age, ash content, cortical area and failure stress interrelationships. J Anim Sci 1979; 49: 979-982.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar