Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2017; 30(04): 1-5
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-16-09-0136
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Effect of headless compression screw on construct stability for centre of rotation and angulation-based levelling osteotomy

Biomechanical testing in flexion and torsion
Michelle R. Meyer
1   Sun City Veterinary Surgery Center, El Paso, TX, USA
,
Mireya A. Perez
2   W. M. Keck Center for 3D Innovation, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA
,
Mohammad S. Hossain
2   W. M. Keck Center for 3D Innovation, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA
4   Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA
,
Edward B. Silverman
1   Sun City Veterinary Surgery Center, El Paso, TX, USA
,
Randall B. Fitch
3   Beacon Veterinary Specialists, Fremont, CA, USA
,
Ryan B. Wicker
2   W. M. Keck Center for 3D Innovation, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA
4   Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 21 September 2016

Accepted: 02 March 2017

Publication Date:
23 December 2017 (online)

Preview

Summary

Objective: To compare the biomechanical properties of bone and implant constructs when used for the centre of rotation and angulation (CORA) based levelling osteotomy, with and without implantation of a trans-osteotomy headless compression screw tested under three-point flexural and torsional forces; thereby determining the contribution of a trans-osteotomy headless compression screw with regards to stability of the construct.

Methods: Experimental biomechanical study utilizing 12 pairs of cadaveric canine tibias. Using the CORA based levelling osteotomy (CBLO) procedure, the osteotomy was stabilized with either a standard non-locking CBLO bone plate augmented with a headless compression screw (HCS) or a CBLO bone plate alone. Tibial constructs were mechanically tested in three-point craniocaudal flexural testing or in torsion.

Results: In three-point flexural testing, the difference between the two constructs was not significant. In torsion, the difference in the angle of failure between constructs with a HCS (48.46°) and constructs without a HCS (81.65°) was significant (p = 0.036). Maximum torque achieved by constructs with a HCS (21.7 Nm) was greater than those without (18.7 Nm) (p = 0.056). Stiffness differences between both groups in torsion and bending were not significant. Use of a HCS did increase the stability of the CBLO construct in torsional testing, but not in flexural testing.