Biomechanical Comparison of a Locking Compression Plate Combined With an Intramedullary Pin or a Polyetheretherketone Rod in a Cadaveric Canine Tibia Gap Model. Issue 8 (8th August 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Beierer, Lucas H.; Glyde, Mark; Day, Robert E.; Hosgood, Giselle L.
• Is Part Of: Veterinary surgery. Volume 43:Issue 8(2014)
• Page Start: 1032
• Page End: 1038
• Publication Date: 2014-08-08
• Subjects: Veterinary surgery -- Periodicals; Veterinary Medicine -- Periodicals; Surgery -- Periodicals; Societies, Medical -- Periodicals; 636.0897
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2014.12254.x
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0161-3499

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec id="vsu12254-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Objective</title> <p>To compare the biomechanical properties of a 10‐hole 3.5 mm locking compression plate (LCP) with 2 proximal and 2 distal bicortical locked screws reinforced with either a Steinmann pin of 30–40% the medullary diameter or a poly‐ether‐ether‐ketone (PEEK) rod of ∼75% the medullary diameter in a cadaveric tibia gap model.</p> </sec> <sec id="vsu12254-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Study Design</title> <p> <italic>Ex vivo</italic> study.</p> </sec> <sec id="vsu12254-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Sample Population</title> <p>Cadaveric canine tibias (n = 8 pair).</p> </sec> <sec id="vsu12254-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p>Each construct had a 10‐hole 3.5 mm LCP with 2 screws per fracture fragment using a comminuted tibia gap model. The Steinmann pin constructs had a 2.4 mm intramedullary pin whereas the PEEK‐rod constructs had a 6 mm intramedullary PEEK rod placed. Biomechanical testing included non‐destructive bi‐planar 4 point bending, torsion testing, and destructive axial compression. Testing produced the responses of failure load (N) in axial compression, stiffness (N/mm or N/°) in axial compression, torsion, lateral‐medial, and caudal‐cranial 4 point bending. Screw position within the PEEK‐rods was determined after explantation.</p> </sec> <sec id="vsu12254-sec-0005" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>The PEEK‐rod constructs were significantly stiffer in axial compression (<italic>P</italic> < .005), lateral‐medial 4 point bending (<italic>P</italic> < .001), and in torsional loading (<italic>P</italic> < .031) than the Steinman pin constructs. There was no significant difference between the constructs for stiffness in caudal‐cranial 4 point bending (<italic>P</italic> = .32). The PEEK‐rod constructs failed at a significantly higher load than the Steinmann pin constructs (<italic>P</italic> < .001). All constructs failed by yielding through plastic deformation. Each screw penetrated the PEEK rod in all constructs but the position of the screw varied.</p> </sec> <sec id="vsu12254-sec-0006" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusion</title> <p>PEEK‐rod constructs failed at significantly higher loads and were significantly stiffer in 4 point lateral‐medial bending, axial compression, and torsion when compared with Steinmann pin constructs.</p> </sec> </abstract>