Biomechanical comparison of a novel monocortical and two common bicortical external fixation systems regarding rigidity and dynamic stability

Abstract Aim: To biomechanically compare a monocortical single frame external fixator (Orthofix UNYCO) with two bicortical fixator systems (dual frame: Stryker Hoffmann and single frame: Synthes LEF) with respect to system rigidity and stability under cyclic loading. Methods: The fixator systems were assessed for axial rigidity under loads which would occur clinically during fixator application and dynamic stability (cyclic fatigue) under loads which would occur in the first week postoperatively. Tests were performed on porcine tibiae (n>5 per group) with characteristic frame configurations. Loads were applied with an electrodynamic material testing machine and pin and frame deformations were continuously monitored with a marker based motion capturing system. Results: The bicortical single frame fixator revealed the largest rigidity (276±55) N/mm and was 20% (p=0.116) stiffer compared to the bicortical dual frame configuration and 39% (p=0.003) stiffer compared to the monocortical system. All systems survived 4000 cycles of loading, with the smallest vertical displacement (2.44±0.54 mm) observed for the bicortical dual frame system, followed by the monocortical single frame (3±0.55 mm, p=0.85) and bicortical single frame (3.25±0.96 mm, p=0.215). Conclusion: The monocortical fixation system performed comparably to the bicortical systems for its intended use as a temporary treatment before a definitive fracture osteosynthesis by plating or nailing.

[1]  R. Sellei,et al.  Biomechanical properties of different external fixator frame configurations , 2015, European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery.

[2]  Ahmad Oryan,et al.  Selection of animal models for pre-clinical strategies in evaluating the fracture healing, bone graft substitutes and bone tissue regeneration and engineering , 2015, Connective tissue research.

[3]  S. Tashman,et al.  Conversion From Temporary External Fixation to Definitive Fixation: Shaft Fractures , 2006, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[4]  R. G. Richards,et al.  Animal models for implant biomaterial research in bone: a review. , 2007, European cells & materials.

[5]  Lutz Claes,et al.  Internal loads in the human tibia during gait. , 2009, Clinical biomechanics.

[6]  P. Duhamel,et al.  Damage control orthopaedics in the context of battlefield injuries: the use of temporary external fixation on combat trauma soldiers. , 2011, Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR.

[7]  N. Tejwani,et al.  Biomechanics of external fixation: a review of the literature. , 2007, Bulletin of the NYU hospital for joint diseases.

[8]  P. Giannoudis,et al.  The Risk of Local Infective Complications After Damage Control Procedures for Femoral Shaft Fracture , 2006, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[9]  Lutz Claes,et al.  Shear movement at the fracture site delays healing in a diaphyseal fracture model , 2003, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[10]  G. Haidukewych,et al.  Temporary External Fixation for the Management of Complex Intra- and Periarticular Fractures of the Lower Extremity , 2002, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[11]  T. Maluta,et al.  Temporary bridging external fixation in distal tibial fracture. , 2014, Injury.

[12]  C. Murray,et al.  Temporary external fixation is safe in a combat environment. , 2010, The Journal of trauma.

[13]  D. Seligson Evolution of the Hoffmann Fixators. , 2015, Injury.

[14]  R. Zdero,et al.  Biomechanical measurements of cortical screw purchase in five types of human and artificial humeri. , 2014, Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials.