Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2005; 18(04): 199-207
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632964
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

In vivo axial dynamization of canine tibial fractures using the Securos external skeletal fixation system

S. C. Gorman
1   Departments of Clinical Sciences
,
K. H. Kraus
1   Departments of Clinical Sciences
,
J. H. Keating
2   Departments of Biomedical Sciences, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, North Grafton, Massachusetts, USA
,
A. S. Tidwell
1   Departments of Clinical Sciences
,
W. M. Rand
3   Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
,
J. D. Parkington
4   Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
,
R. J. Boudrieau
1   Departments of Clinical Sciences
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 20 May 2005

Accepted 04 July 2005

Publication Date:
22 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Bilateral transverse mid-shaft tibial osteotomies, with a 4-mm gap, were performed in purpose-bred research dogs and stabilized using a Securos™ Type 2 external skeletal fixator (ESF). Full (100%) axial dynamization of one randomly selected ESF in each dog was performed at 31 days postoperatively. Caudo-cranial radiographs were obtained at weekly intervals, which were qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated (densitometry and ImageJ analysis). The dogs were euthanatized 13 weeks postoperatively, at which time dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT), mechanical testing in torsion, and qualitative histological analysis were performed. A two-tailed paired Student's t-test was performed for statistical analysis of all parameters of interest, with significance set at p<0.05. Three of five dynamized bones bridged quicker, and four of five dynamized bones appeared to have greater callus formation, however, statistically significant differences could not be definitively determined. Statistically significant differences were not found with densitometry (any time frame), DEXA, pQCT, torsional stiffness or maximum torque. Despite the lack of statistically relevant data, trends were observed with larger callus size and density in the dynamized tibiae. The dynamized tibiae appeared to fracture more consistently outside of the area of the healing callus as compared to the control tibiae. Histological evaluation showed greater remodelling in four of five control limbs when compared to the dynamized limb. Dynamization at 31 days postoperatively may delay bone remodelling, despite a trend towards a larger callus size. The results of this study failed to show a definitive role for early full axial dynamization.

Keywords

Tibial fractures - external skeletal fixation - dynamization
 

  • References

  • 1 McKibbin B. The biology of fracture healing in long bones. J Bone Joint Surg 1978; 60-B: 50-162.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Carter DR, Beaupre GS, Giori NJ. et al. Mechanobiology of skeletal regeneration. Clin Orthop 1998; 355S: S41-S55.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Augat P, Merk J, Wolf S. et al. Mechanical stimulation by external application of cyclic tensile strains does not effectively enhance bone healing. J Orthop Trauma 2001; 15: 54-60.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Claes L, Wilke HJ, Augat P. et al. Effect of dynamization on gap healing of diaphyseal fractures under external fixation. Clin Biomech 1995; 10: 227-34.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Goodship AE, Kenwright J. The influence of induced micromovement upon the healing of experimental tibial fractures. J Bone Joint Surg 1985; 67-B: 650-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Goodship AE, Watkins PE, Rigby HS. et al. The role of fixator frame stiffness in the control of fracture healing. An experimental study. J Biomech 1993; 26: 1027-35.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kenwright J, Goodship AE. Controlled mechanical stimulation in the treatment of tibial fractures. Clin Orthop 1989; 241: 36-47.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Larsson S, Wookcheol K, Caja VL. et al. Effect of early axial dynamization on tibial bone healing: a study in dogs. Clin Orthop 2001; 388: 240-51.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rubin CT, Lanyon LE. Osteoregulatory nature of mechanical stimuli: function as a determinant for adaptive remodeling in bone. J Orthop Res 1987; 5: 300-10.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Perren SM, Claes L. Biology and biomechanics in fracture management. In: AO Principles of Fracture Management. Rüedi TP, and Murphy WM. (eds.) Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2000: 7-30.
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Egger EL, Gottsauner-Wolf F, Palmer J. et al. Effects of axial dynamization on bone healing. J Trauma 1993; 34: 185-92.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 O'Doherty DM, Butler SP, Goodship AE. Stress protection due to external fixation. J Biomech 1995; 28: 575-86.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Richards M, Waanders NA, Weiss JA. et al. Reduced gap strains induce changes in bone regeneration during distraction. J Biomech Eng 1999; 121: 348-55.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Goodship AE, Cunningham JL, Kenwright J. Strain rate and timing of stimulation in mechanical modulation of fracture healing. Clin Orthop 1998; (5 Suppl 2) S105-115.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Perren SM. Physical and biological aspects of fracture healing with special reference to internal fixation. Clin Orthop 1979; 138: 175-96.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Park SH, O'Connor K, McKellop H. et al. The influence of active shear or compressive motion on fracture-healing. J Bone Joint Surg 1998; 80-A: 868-878.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Arazi M, Yalcin H, Tarakcioglu N. et al. The effects of dynamization and destabilization of the external fixator on fracture healing: a comparative bio-mechanical study in dogs. Orthopedics 2002; 25: 521-4.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Anderson MA, Mann FA, Kinden DA. et al. Evaluation of cortical bone damage and axial holding power of nonthreaded and enhanced threaded pins placed with and without drilling of a pilot hole in femurs from canine cadavers. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1996; 208: 883-7.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Aron DN, Toombs JP, Hollingsworth SC. Primary treatment of severe fractures by external skeletal fixation: threaded pins compared with smooth pins. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1986; 22: 659-70.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Clary EM, Roe SC. In vitro biomechanical and histological assessment of pilot hole diameter for positive-profile external skeletal fixation pins in canine tibiae. Vet Surg 1996; 25: 453-62.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Egger EL, Histand MB, Blass CE. et al. Effect of fixation pin insertion on the bone-pin interface. Vet Surg 1986; 15: 246-52.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kraus KH, Wotton HM, Boudrieau RJ. et al. Type-II external fixation, using new clamps and positive-profile threaded pins, for treatment of fractures of the radius and tibia in dogs. JAmVet Med Assoc 1998; 212: 1267-70.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Toombs JP, Bronson DG, Ross D. et al. The SK™ external fixation system: description of components, instrumentation, and application tech niques. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2003; 2: 76-81.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kenwright J, Richardson JB, Cunningham JL. et al. Axial movement and tibial fractures. A controlled randomized trial of treatment. J Bone Joint Surg 1991; 73-B: 654-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kershaw CJ, Cunningham JL, Kenwright J. Tibial external fixation, weight bearing, and fracture movement. Clin Orthop 1993; 293: 28-36.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 O'Sullivan ME, Bronk JT, Chao EYS. et al. Experimental study of the effect of weight bearing on fracture healing in the canine tibia. Clin Orthop 1994; 302: 273-83.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Arinzeh TL, Peter SJ, Archambault MP. et al. Allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells regenerate bone in a critical-sized canine segmental defect. J Bone Joint Surg 2003; 85-A: 1927-35.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 White III AA, Panjabi MM, Southwick WO. The four biomechanical stages of fracture repair. J Bone Joint Surg 1977; 59-A: 188-92.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Egger EL, Histand MB, Norrdin RW. et al. Canine osteotomy healing when stabilized with decreasingly rigid fixation compared to constantly rigid fixation. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1993; 6: 182-7.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kraus KH, Kadiyala S, Wotton H. et al. Critically sized osteo-periosteal femoral defects: a dog model. J Investigative Surg 1999; 12: 115-24.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Carter DR, Blenman PR, Beaupré GS. Correlations between mechanical stress history and tissue differentiation in initial fracture healing. J Orthop Res 1988; 6: 736-48.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Aro HT, Kelly PJ, Lewallen DG. et al. The effects of physiologic dynamic compression on bone healing under external fixation. Clin Orthop 1990; 256: 260-73.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Tepic S. Dynamization? Biomechanical aspects. Proceedings of the 78th AO Course – Davos 2003 (Fracture Treatment in Small Animals; Advanced Techniques). December 7-12 2003 pp 103-104.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Hente R, Fûchtmeier B, Schlegel U. et al. The influence of cyclic compression and distraction on the healing of experimental tibial fractures. J Orthop Res 2004; 4: 709-15.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Smith GK. Biomechanics pertinent to fracture etiology reduction, and fixation. In: Textbook of Small Animal Orthopaedics. Newton CD, Nunamaker DM. (eds.) NewYork: J.B. Lippincott; 1985: 195-230.
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Schenk R, Willenegger H. Zum histologischen Bild der sogenannten Primärheilung der Knochenkompakta nach experimentellen Osteotomien am Hund. Experimentia 1963; 19: 593-614.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar