PDF herunterladen
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2005; 18(04): 220-226
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632958
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

In vitro biomechanical comparison of limited contact dynamic compression plate and locking compression plate

A. Z. Aguila
1   College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
,
J. M. Manos
2   Sibley School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
,
A. S. Orlansky
2   Sibley School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
,
R. J. Todhunter
1   College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
,
E. J. Trotter
1   College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
,
M. C. H. van der Meulen
2   Sibley School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Received 04. März 2005

Accepted 16. Mai 2005

Publikationsdatum:
22. Februar 2018 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Summary

The locking compression plate (LCP) supports biological osteosynthesis by functioning as an internal fixator, rather than as a full or limited contact bone plate which must be adequately contoured and affixed directly to the bone for stable internal fixation of the fracture. In order to help justify the use of the LCP in our veterinary patients, in vitro biomechanical testing was performed comparing the LCP to the conventional limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) in canine femurs. We hypothesized that the LCP construct would be at least as stiff under bending and torsional loads as the LC-DCP. The LCP and LC-DCP were applied over a 20-mm osteotomy gap to contralateral bones within each pair of 14 femora. Non-destructive four-point bending and torsion, and cyclical testing in torsion were performed. The constructs were then loaded to failure in torsion. In medial-lateral and lateral-medial structural bending, significant differences were not found between the LCP and LC-DCP, however, at the gap, the LCP construct was stiffer than the LC-DCP in lateral-medial bending. Significant differences in behaviour over time were not noted between the plate designs during cyclical testing. When loading the constructs to failure in internal rotation, the LC-DCP failed at a significantly lower twist angle (P = .0024) than the LCP. Based on the similar performance with loading, the locking compression plate is a good alternative implant for unstable diaphyseal femoral fracture repair in dogs.

Keywords

Mechanical testing - LCP - LC-DCP
 

  • References

  • 1 Aron DN, Palmer RH, Johnson AL. Biologic Strategies and a Balanced Concept for Repair of Highly Comminuted Long Bone Fractures. Compendium on Continuing Education 1995; 17 (1) 35-49.
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Perren SM. The concept of biological plating using the limited contact-dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP). Scientific background, design and application. Injury 1991; 22 Suppl 1 1-41.
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Bernarde A, Diop A, Maurel N. et al. An in vitro biomechanical comparison between bone plate and interlocking nail. Vet Comp Orthop and Traumatol 2002; 2/2002(15) 57-66.
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Dueland RT, Johnson KA, Roe SC. et al. Interlocking nail treatment of diaphyseal long-bone fracturesindogs. JAmVet Med Assoc 1999; 214 (1) 59-66.
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Duhautois B. Use of veterinary interlocking nails for diaphyseal fractures in dogs and cats: 121 cases. Vet Surg 2003; 32 (1) 8-20.
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Karnezis IA, Miles AW, Cunningham JL. et al. 'Biological' internal fixation of long bone fractures: a biomechanical study of a 'noncontact' plate system. Injury 1998; 29 (9) 689-95.
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Gerber C, Mast JW, Ganz R. Biological internal fixation of fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1990; 109 (6) 295-303.
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Perren SM, Klaue K, Pohler O. et al. The limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP). ArchOrthop Trauma Surg 1990; 109 (6) 304-10.
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Frigg R. Locking Compression Plate (LCP). An osteosynthesis plate based on the Dynamic Compression Plate and the Point Contact Fixator (PC-Fix). Injury 2001; 32 Suppl 2 63-6.
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Sommer C. Locking Compression Plate. Injury 2003; 34 Suppl 2 B4-B5.
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Frigg R. Development of the Locking Compression Plate. Injury 2003; 34 Suppl 2 B6-10.
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Sommer C, Gautier E, Muller M. et al. First clinical results of the Locking Compression Plate (LCP). Injury 2003; 34 Suppl 2 B43-B54.
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Zahn K, Matis U. The clamp rod internal fixator – application and results in 120 small animal fracture patients. Vet Comp Orthop and Traumatol 2004; (3) 110-20.
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Lill H, Hepp P, Korner J. et al. Proximal humeral fractures: how stiff should an implant be? A comparative mechanical study with new implants in human specimens. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2003; 123 (2-3) 74-81.
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Leung F, Zhu L, Ho H. et al. Palmar plate fixation of AO type C2 fracture of distal radius using a locking compression plate--a biomechanical study in a cadaveric model. J Hand Surg [Br ] 2003; 28 (3) 263-6.
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Korner J, Lill H, Muller LP. et al. The LCP-concept in the operative treatment of distal humerus fractures--biological, biomechanical and surgical aspects. Injury 2003; 34 Suppl 2 B20-B30.
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Korner J, Diederichs G, Arzdorf M. et al. A biomechanical evaluation of methods of distal humerus fracture fixation using locking compression plates versus conventional reconstruction plates. J Orthop Trauma 2004; 18 (5) 286-93.
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Stoffel K, Dieter U, Stachowiak G. et al. Biomechanical testing of the LCP--how can stability in locked internal fixators be controlled?. Injury 2003; 34 Suppl 2 B11-B19.
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Laverty PH, Johnson AL, Toombs JP. et al. Simple and multiple fractures ofthe radius treated with an external fixator Comparison of healing of simple fractures and multiple fractures of the radius treated with external skeletal fixation in dogs: 56 cases (1983-1999). Vet Comp Orthop and Traumatol 2002; 2: 97-103.
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Dueland RT, Berglund L, Vanderby R. et al. Structural Properties of Interlocking Nails, Canine Femora, and Femur-Interlocking Nail Constructs. Vet Surg 1996; 25: 386-96.
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Muir P, Johnson AL, Markel MD. Area Moment of Intertia for Comparison of Implant Cross-Sectional Geometry and Bending Stiffness. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1995; 8: 146-52.
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Kraus KH, Kadiyala S, Wotton H. et al. Critically Sized Osteo-Periosteal Femoral Defects: A Dog Model. J Invest Surg 1999; 12: 115-124.
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Wagner M. General principles for the clinical use of the LCP. Injury 2003; 34 Suppl 2 B31-B42.
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Kaab MJ, Frenk A, Schmeling A. et al. Locked internal fixator: sensitivity of screw/plate stability to the correct insertion angle of the screw. J Orthop Trauma 2004; 18 (8) 483-7.
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Perren SM. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. The scientific basis of biological internal fixation: choosing a new balance between stability and biology J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84 (8) 1093-110.
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Gautier E, Sommer C. Guidelines for the clinical application of the LCP. Injury 2003; 34 Suppl 2 B63-B76.
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Perren SM. Evolution and rationale of locked internal fixator technology. Introductory remarks. Injury 2001; 32 Suppl 2 B3-B9.
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Rozbruch SR, Muller U, Gautier E. et al. The evolution of femoral shaft plating technique. Clin Orthop 1998; (354) 195-208.
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar