Stiffness of modified Type 1a linear external skeletal fixators

Summary

Modifications of a Type1a external skeletal fixator (ESF) frame were evaluated by alternately placing transfixation pins on opposite sides of the connecting rod (Type 1a-MOD) or by placing additional connecting rods on either of the two inside (Type 1a-INSIDE) or two outside (Type 1a-OUTSIDE) transfixation pins. The objective of this study was to evaluate the stiffness of these modifications in terms of axial compression (AC), cranial-caudal bending (CCB), and medial-lateral bending (MLB). We hypothesized that these designs would allow significant increase in unilateral frame stiffness, over Type 1a, without proportional increase in frame complexity or technical difficulty of application. All of the ESF frames were constructed using large IMEX SK™ clamps, 3.2 mm threaded fixation pins, 9.5 mm carbon fibre connecting rods and Delrin rods as bone models. Nine, eight pin frames of each design were constructed, and subjected to repetitive non-destructive loading forces (AC, CCB, MLB) using a materials testing machine. Frame construct stiffness for each force (AC, CCB, MLB) was derived from load-deformation curve analysis and displayed in N/mm. Data revealed the 1a-MOD and 1a-OUTSIDE constructs had significantly increased stiffness in CCB and AC as compared to the Type 1a constructs while all of the modified constructs were significantly stiffer in MLB than the Type 1a constructs.

Keywords

External skeletal fixation - biomechanics - Type 1a - Type 1b

• References

• 1 Bronson DG, Ross D, Toombs JP. et al. Influence of the connecting rod on the biomechanical properties of five external skeletal fixation configurations. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2003; 16: 82-87.
• 2 Egger EL. Static strength evaluation of six external skeletal fixation configurations. J Vet Surg 1983; 12: 130-136.
• 3 Egger EL. Complications of external fixation-A problem-oriented approach. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Prac 1991; 21: 705-733.
• 4 Renegar WR, Leeds EB, Olds RB. The use of the Kirshner-Ehmer splint in clinical orthopedics part I. Long bone andmandibular fractures. The Comp Contin Ed 1982; 4: 381-391.
• 5 Palmer RH, Hulse DA, Hyman WA. et al. Principles of bone healing and biomechanics of external skeletal fixation. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1992; 22: 45-68.
• 6 White DT, Bronson DG, Welch RD. A mechanical comparison of veterinary linear external fixation systems. JVet Surg 2003; 32: 507-514.
• 7 Goodship AE, Watkins PE, Rigby HS. et al. The role of fixator frame stiffness in the control of fracture healing. An experimental study. J Bio- mech 1993; 26: 1027-1035.
• 8 Williams EA, Rand JA, Chao EYS. et al. The early healing of tibial osteotomies stabilized by one- plane or two-plane external fixation. J Bone Joint Surg 1987; 69A: 355-364.
• 9 Wu J-J, Shyr HS, Chao EYS. et al. Comparison of osteotomy healing under external fixation devices with different stiffness characteristics. J Bone Joint Surg 1984; 66A: 1258-1264.
• 10 Johnson AL, Egger EL, Eurell JC. et al. Biomechanics and biology of fracture healing with the external skeletal fixation. Compend Contin Educ PractVet 1998; 20: 487-498.
• 11 Marti Marti, Miller A. Delimitation of safe corridors for the insertion of external fixator pins in the dog 2: Forelimb. J Small Anim Pract 1994; 35: 78-85.
• 12 Marti Marti, Miller A. Delimitation of safe corridor for the insertions of external fixator pin in the dog 1: Hindlimb. J Small Anim Pract 1994; 35: 16-23.
• 13 Pettit GD. History of external skeletal fixation. Vet ClinNorthAm SmallAnim Pract 1992; 22: 1-9.
• 14 Johnson AL, Seitz SE, Smith CW. et al. Closed reduction and type II external fixation of comminuted fractures of the radius and tibia in dogs: 23 cases (1990-1994). JAmVet Med Assoc 1996; 209: 1445-1448.
• 15 Bouvy BM, Markel MD, Chelikani Setal. Ex vivo biomechanics of Kirschner-Ehmer external skeletal fixation applied to canine tibiae. J Vet Surg 1993; 22: 194-207.