Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21(04): 323-328
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-07-08-0082
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Axial pull-out strength of 3.5 cortical and 4.0 cancellous bone screws placed in canine proximal tibias using manual and power tapping

J. L. Demko
1   The Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA
,
M. E. Soniat
2   The Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA
,
S. Elder
2   The Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA
,
R. McLaughlin
1   The Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 22 August 2007

Accepted 07 February 2007

Publication Date:
19 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

An in vitro experimental cadaveric mechanical testing study was performed using 20 radiographically mature dogs, weighing between 18–33 kg. The aim of the study was to compare the axial pull-out strength of 3.5 mm cortical and 4.0 mm cancellous bone screws inserted in the canine proximal tibia using manual and power tapping techniques. 3.5 cortical and 4.0 cancellous bone screws were inserted in canine cadaver proximal tibiae using a manual or power tapping technique. The screws were extracted using a servohydraulic materials testing machine in order to measure axial pullout strength. Axial pull-out strength was recorded relative to the total bone width and total cortical width of each tibia. The mean axial pull-out strength for all constructs was 717.8±56.5 N without any statistically significant difference among groups (p=0.4183). The groups were equal in animal body weight, cortical width and total bone width (p=0.2808). The axial pull-out strength in proportion to cortical and total bone width was not significantly different among groups (p=0.5318). Axial pull-out strengths of 3.5 mm cortical and 4.0 mm cancellous bone screws inserted in the proximal tibial metaphysis were not significantly different. Axial pull-out strength was not affected by the use of power tapping in either screw type.

Keywords

Canine proximal metaphysis - screw insertion techniques - Mechanical testing - tibia
 

  • References

  • 1 Olmstead ML. Complications of fractures repaired with plates and screws.. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1991; 21: 669-686.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Clary EM, Roe SC. In vitro biomechanical and histological assement of pilot hole diameter for positive-profile external skeletal fixation pins in canine tibiae.. Vet Surg 1996; 25: 453-462.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Robb JL, Cook JL, Carson W. In vitro evaluation of suture and bone anchors in metaphyseal bone of the canine tibia.. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 499-508.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Pacchiana PD, Morris E, Gillings SL. et al. Surgical and postoperative complications associated with tibial plateau leveling osteotomy in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament rupture: 397 cases (1998-2001).. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003; 222: 184-193.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Priddy NH, Tomlinson JT, Dodam JR. et al. Complications with and owner assessment of the outcome of tibial plateau leveling osteotomy for treatment of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs: 193 cases (1997-2001).. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003; 222: 1726-1732.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gillis JP, Zardiackas LD, Gilbert JA. et al. Holding power of cortical screws after power tapping and hand tapping.. Vet Surg 1992; 21: 362-366.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Murphy TP, Hill CM, Kapatkin AS. et al. Pull-out properties of 3.5-mm AO/ASIF self-tapping and cortex screws in auniform synthetic material and in canine bone.. Vet Surg 2001; 30: 253-260.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Decoster TA, Heetderks DB, Downey DJ. et al. Optimizing bone screw pull-out forces.. J Orthop Trauma 1990; 4: 169-174.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Morisset S, McClure SR, Hillberry BM. et al. In vitro comparison of the use of two large-animal, centrally threaded, positive-profile transfixation pin designs in the equine third metacarpal bone.. Am J Vet Res 2000; 61: 1298-1303.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bachus KN, Rondina MT, Hutchinson DT. The effects of drilling force on cortical temperatures and their duration: an in vitro study.. Med Eng Phys 2000; 22: 685-691.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 O’Sullivan CB, Bertone AL, Litsky AS. et al. Effect of laser shock peening on fatigue life and surface characteristics of stainless steel cortical bone screws.. Am J Vet Res 2004; 65: 972-976.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Silbernagel JT, Kennedy SC, Johnson AL. et al. Validation of canine cancellous and cortical polyurethane foam bone models.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2002; 15: 200-204.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Andrea CR, Stover SM, Galuppo LD. et al. Comparison of insertion time and pull-out strength between self-tapping and non-self-tapping AO 4.5-mm cortical bone screws in equine thirdmetacarpal bone.. Vet Surg 2002; 31: 189-194.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Yovich JV, Turner AS, Smith FW. et al. Holding power of orthopedic screws: comparison of selftapped and pre-tapped screws in foal bone.. Vet Surg 1986; 15: 55-59.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hearn TC, Surowiak JF, Schatzker J. Effects of tapping on the holding power of cancellous bone screws.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1992; 5: 10-12.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Huss BT, Anderson MA, Wagner-Mann CC. et al. Effects of temperature and storage time on pin pull-out testing in harvested canine femurs.. Am J Vet Res 1995; 56: 715-719.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Doornink MT, Nieves MA, Evans R. Evaluation of ilial screw loosening after triple pelvic osteotomy in dogs: 227 cases (1991-1999).. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006; 229: 535-541.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sardinas JC, Kraus KH, Sisson RD. Comparison of the holding power of 3.5 mm cortical versus 4.0 mm cancellous orthopedic screws in the pelvis of immature dogs (cadavers).. Am J Vet Res 1995; 56: 248-551.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Clary EM, Rose SC. In vitro biomechanical and histological assessment of pilot hole diameter for positive profile external skeletal pins in canine tibia.. Vet Surg 1996; 25: 453-462.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Johnson KA, Smith FW. Axial compression generated by cortical and cancellous lag screws in the equine distal phalanx.. Vet 2003; 166: 159-163.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Seebeck J, Goldhahm J, Stadele H. et al. Effect of cortical thickness and cancellous bone density on the holding strength of internal fixator screws.. J Orthop Res 2004; 22: 1237-1242.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Patil S, Mahon A, Green S. et al. A biomechanical study comparing a raft of 3.5 mm cortical screws with 6.5 cancellous screws in depressed tibial plateau fractures.. Knee 2006; 13: 231-235.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Seebeck J, Goldhahn J, Morlock MM. et al. Mechanical behavior of screws in normal and osteoporotic bone.. Osteoporos Int 2005; Supp (Suppl. 116) S107-111.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Cooper HJ, Kummer FJ, Egol KA. et al. The effect of screw type on fixation of depressed fragments in tibial plateau fractures.. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 2001 2002; 60: 72-75.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Gausepohl T, Mohring R, Pennig D. et al. Fine threaded versus coarse thread. A comparison of maximum holding power.. Injury 2001; (Suppl. 01) 32: SD1-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Glauser CR, Oden ZM, Ambrose CG. et al. Mechanical testing of small fracture implants for comparison of insertion and failure torques.. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2003; 123: 388-391.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 ASTM Designation: F 1691-96.. Standard test method for determining axiak pull-out strength of medical bone screws.. In: Book of ASTM Standards. Philadelphia, PA, American Society for Testing and Materials 1996: 1-2.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Braitman LE. Confidence intervals assess both clinical significance and statistical significance.. Ann of Intern Med 1991; 114: 515-517.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Boutrous CP, Trout DR, Kasra M. et al. The effect of repeated freeze-thaw cycles on the biomechanical properties of canine cortical bone.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2000; 13: 59-64.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Pelker RR, Friedlaender GE, Markham TC. et al. Effect of freeze-drying on the biomechanical properties of rat bone.. J Orthop Res 1984; 1: 405-411.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Roe SC, Pijanowski GJ, Johnson AL. Biomechanical properties of canine cortical bone allografts: effects of preparation and storage.. Am J Vet Res 1988; 49: 873-877.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Tshamala M, van Bree H, Mattheeuws D. Biomechanical properties of ethylene oxide sterilized and cryopreserved cortical bone allografts.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1994; 7: 25-30.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kang Q, An YH, Friedman RJ. Effect of multiple freezing-thawing cycles on the ultimate inden tation load and stiffness of bovine cancellous bone.. Am J Vet Res 1997; 58: 1171-1173.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ansell RH, Scales JT. Study of some factors which affect the strength of screws and their insertion and holding power in bone.. J Biomech 1968; 1: 279-302.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Koranyi E, Bowman CE, Knecht CD. et al. Holding power of orthopedic screws in bone.. Clin Orthop 1970; 72: 283-286.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar