We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
EVALUATION STUDIES
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Angular stability potentially permits fewer locking screws compared with conventional locking in intramedullary nailed distal tibia fractures: a biomechanical study.
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 2011 June
OBJECTIVES: To compare mechanical stability of angle-stable locking construct with four screws with conventional five screw locking in intramedullary nailed distal tibia fractures under cyclic loading.
METHODS: Ten pairs of fresh-frozen human cadaveric tibiae were intramedullary nailed and assigned to either an angle-stable locking construct consisting of four screws or conventional five-screw locking. After simulating an unstable distal two-fragmental 42-A3.1 fracture, the specimens were mechanically tested under quasistatic and cyclic sinusoidal axial and torsional loading.
RESULTS: Bending stiffness of the angle-stable and the conventional fixation was 644.3 N/° and 416.5 N/°, respectively (P = 0.075, power 0.434). Torsional stiffness of the angle-stable locking (1.91 Nm/°) was significantly higher compared with the conventional one (1.13 Nm/°; P = 0.001, power 0.981). Torsional play of the angle-stable fixation (0.08°) was significantly smaller compared with the conventional one (0.46°; P = 0.002, power 0.965). The angle-stable locking revealed significantly less torsional deformation in the fracture gap after one cycle (0.74°) than the conventional one (1.75°; P = 0.005, power 0.915) and also after 1000 cycles (angle-stable: 1.56°; conventional: 2.51°; P = 0.042, power 0.562). Modes of failure were fracture of the distal fragment, loosening of distal locking screws, nail breakage, and their combination, equally distributed between the groups (P = 0.325).
CONCLUSIONS: Both the angle-stable locking technique using four screws and conventional locking consisting of five screws showed high biomechanical properties. Hence, angle-stable locking reflects a potential to maintain fixation stability while reducing the number of locking screws compared with conventional locking in intramedullary nailed unstable distal tibia fractures.
METHODS: Ten pairs of fresh-frozen human cadaveric tibiae were intramedullary nailed and assigned to either an angle-stable locking construct consisting of four screws or conventional five-screw locking. After simulating an unstable distal two-fragmental 42-A3.1 fracture, the specimens were mechanically tested under quasistatic and cyclic sinusoidal axial and torsional loading.
RESULTS: Bending stiffness of the angle-stable and the conventional fixation was 644.3 N/° and 416.5 N/°, respectively (P = 0.075, power 0.434). Torsional stiffness of the angle-stable locking (1.91 Nm/°) was significantly higher compared with the conventional one (1.13 Nm/°; P = 0.001, power 0.981). Torsional play of the angle-stable fixation (0.08°) was significantly smaller compared with the conventional one (0.46°; P = 0.002, power 0.965). The angle-stable locking revealed significantly less torsional deformation in the fracture gap after one cycle (0.74°) than the conventional one (1.75°; P = 0.005, power 0.915) and also after 1000 cycles (angle-stable: 1.56°; conventional: 2.51°; P = 0.042, power 0.562). Modes of failure were fracture of the distal fragment, loosening of distal locking screws, nail breakage, and their combination, equally distributed between the groups (P = 0.325).
CONCLUSIONS: Both the angle-stable locking technique using four screws and conventional locking consisting of five screws showed high biomechanical properties. Hence, angle-stable locking reflects a potential to maintain fixation stability while reducing the number of locking screws compared with conventional locking in intramedullary nailed unstable distal tibia fractures.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app