A comparison of conventional compression plates and locking compression plates using cantilever bending in an ilial fracture model

Summary

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the stiffness, yield load, ultimate load at failure, displacement at failure, and mode of failure in cantilever bending of locking compression plates (LCP) and dynamic compression plates (DCP) in an acute failure ilial fracture model. Our hypothesis was that the LCP would be superior to the DCP for all of these biomechanical properties.

Methods: Ten pelves were harvested from healthy dogs euthanatized for reasons unrelated to this study and divided into two groups. A transverse osteotomy was performed and stabilized with either a 6-hole DCP applied in compression or a 6-hole LCP. Pelves were tested in cantilever bending at 20 mm/min to failure and construct stiffness, yield load, ultimate load at failure, displacement at failure, and mode of failure were compared.

Results: The mean stiffness of DCP constructs (193 N/mm [95% CI 121 – 264]) and of LCP constructs (224 N/mm [95% CI 152 – 295]) was not significantly different. Mean yield load of DCP constructs (900 N [95% CI 649 –1151]) and of LCP constructs (984 N [95% CI 733 –1235]) was not significantly different. No significant differences were found between the DCP and LCP constructs with respect to mode of failure, displacement at failure, or ultimate load at failure.

Clinical significance: Our study did not demonstrate any differences between DCP and LCP construct performance in acute failure testing in vitro.

Keywords

LCP - DCP - locking compression plate - dynamic compression plate - canine ilium - cantilever bending - bone quality

• References

• 1 Zulauf D, Kaser-Hotz B, Hassig M. et al. Radiographic examination and outcome in consecutive feline trauma patients. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21: 36-40.
• 2 Phillips IR. A survey of bone fractures in the dog and cat. J Small Anim Pract 1979; 20: 661-674.
• 3 Denny HR. Pelvic fractures in the dog: a review of 123 cases. J Small Anim Pract 1978; 19: 151-166.
• 4 Fractures of the Pelvis. In Piermattei D, Flo G, DeCamp C. Editors Brinker, Piermattei and Flo's Handbook of Small Animal Orthopedics and Fracture Repair. 4. Toronto : W.B Saunders Company; 2006: 431-460.
• 5 DeCamp C. Fractures of the Pelvis. In Tobias K, Johnston S. editors Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. 1st ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 2011: 801-815.
• 6 Breshears L, Fitch RB, Wallace LJ. et al. The radiographic evaluation of repaired canine ilial fractures (69 cases). Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2004; 17: 64-72.
• 7 DeCamp C. Fractures of the ilium. In Johnson A, Houlton J, Vannini R. Editors AO Principles of Fracture Management in the Dog and Cat. 1st ed. Davos, Switzerland: AO Publishing; 2005: 170-177.
• 8 Hulse D, VanGundy T, Johnson S. et al. Compression screw stabilization of oblique ilial fractures in the dog. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1989; 2: 32-37.
• 9 Vangundy T, Hulse D, Nelson J. et al. Mechanical evaluation of two canine iliac fracture fixation systems. Vet Surg 1988; 17: 321-327.
• 10 Langley-Hobbs S, Meeson R, Hamilton M. et al. Feline ilial fractures: A prospective study of dorsal plating and comparison with lateral plating. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 334-342.
• 11 Burton NJ. Composite fixation of comminuted ilial wing fractures in cats: three cases. J Feline Med Surg 2011; 13: 376-382.
• 12 Fitzpatrick NN, Lewis DD, Cross AA. A biomechanical comparison of external skeletal fixation and plating for the stabilization of ilial osteotomies in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21: 349-357.
• 13 External skeletal fixation (ESF) of pelvic fractures in 156 dogs and cats. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference Veterinary Orthopedic Society Congress. Sun Valley, Idaho, USA: 2007. March 4-10 66
• 14 Bowlt KLK, Shales CC. Repair of a transverse ilial fracture in a cat using an intramedullary pin. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2010; 23: 186-189.
• 15 VanGundy T, Hulse D, Nelson J. Mechanical analysis of pelvic fractures. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Veterinary Orthopedic Society. Breckenridge, CO, USA: 1988. February 20-27 40.
• 16 Bogoni P, Rovesti GL. Early detection and treatment of screw loosening in triple pelvic osteotomy. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 190-195.
• 17 Doornink MTM, Nieves MAM, Evans RR. Evaluation of ilial screw loosening after triple pelvic osteotomy in dogs: 227 cases (1991-1999). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006; 229: 535-541.
• 18 Hamilton MHM, Evans DAD, Langley-Hobbs SJS. Feline ilial fractures: assessment of screw loosening and pelvic canal narrowing after lateral plating. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 326-333.
• 19 Hosgood G, Lewis DD. Retrospective evaluation of fixation complications of 49 pelvic osteotomies in 36 dogs. J Small Anim Pract 1993; 34: 123-130.
• 20 Rose SA, Peck JN, Tano CA. et al. Effect of a locking triple pelvic osteotomy plate on screw loosening in 26 dogs. Vet Surg 2012; 41: 156-162.
• 21 Rose SA, Bruecker KA, Petersen SW. et al. Use of locking plate and screws for triple pelvic osteotomy. Vet Surg 2012; 41: 114-120.
• 22 Wagner M. General principles for the clinical use of the LCP. Injury 2003; 34. (Suppl. 02) Suppl B31-42.
• 23 Sommer C, Gautier E, Müller M. et al. First clinical results of the locking compression plate (LCP). Injury 2003; 34 (Suppl. 02) Suppl B43-54.
• 24 Frigg R. Development of the locking compression plate. Injury 2003; 34 (Suppl. 02) Suppl B6-10.
• 25 Egol KA, Kubiak EN, Fulkerson E. et al. Biomechanics of locked plates and screws. J Orthop Trauma 2004; 18: 488-493.
• 26 Gautier E, Perren SM, Cordey J. Effect of plate position relative to bending direction on the rigidity of a plate osteosynthesis. A theoretical analysis. Injury 2000; 31 (Suppl. 03) Suppl C14-C20.
• 27 Gardner MJ, Griffith MH, Demetrakopoulos D. et al. Hybrid locked plating of osteoporotic fractures of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: 1962-1967.
• 28 Gutwald R, Alpert B, Schmelzeisen R. Principle and stability of locking plates. Keio J Med 2003; 52: 21-24.
• 29 Standard specification and test method for metallic bone plates, ASTM F382-99 (2008)e1. In: American Society for Testing and Materials, editor. 2013 Annual Book of ASTM standards. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. 2013 Available from http://www.astm.org/Standards/F382.htm
• 30 Leitner M, Pearce SG, Windolf M. et al. Comparison of locking and conventional screws for maintenance of tibial plateau positioning and biomechanical stability after locking tibial plateau leveling osteotomy plate fixation. Vet Surg 2008; 37: 357-365.
• 31 Aguila AZ, Manos JM, Orlansky AS. et al. In vitro biomechanical comparison of limited contat dynamic compression plate and locking compression plate. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2005; 18: 220-226.
• 32 Case JB, Dean C, Wilson DM. et al. Comparison of the mechanical behaviors of locked and nonlocked plate/screw fixation applied to experimentally induced rotational osteotomies in canine ilia. Vet Surg 2012; 41: 103-113.
• 33 Small Fragment Locking Compression Plate (LCP) System. Stainless and Titanium. Technique Guide. Paoli, PA: Synthes; 2002
• 34 Miller DL, Goswami T. A review of locking compression plate biomechanics and their advantages as internal fixators in fracture healing. Clin Biomech 2007; 22: 1049-1062.
• 35 Gautier E, Sommer C. Guidelines for the clinical application of the LCP. Injury 2003; 34 (Suppl. 02) Suppl B63-B76.
• 36 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. 02) Suppl B11-19.
• 37 Hoffmeier KL, Hofmann GO, Mückley T. Choosing a proper working length can improve the lifespan of locked plates. A biomechanical study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2011; 26: 405-409.
• 38 Field JR, Törnkvist H, Hearn TC. et al. The influence of screw omission on construction stiffness and bone surface strain in the application of bone plates to cadaveric bone. Injury 1999; 30: 591-598.
• 39 Asnis SE, Ernberg JJ, Bostrom MP. et al. Cancellous bone screw thread design and holding power. J Orthop Trauma 1996; 10: 462-469.
• 40 DeCoster TA, Heetderks DB, Downey DJ. et al. Optimizing bone screw pullout force. J Orthop Trauma 1990; 4: 169-174.
• 41 Murphy TP, Hill CM, Kapatkin AS. et al. Pullout properties of 3.5-mm AO/ASIF self-tapping and cortex screws in a uniform synthetic material and in canine bone. Vet Surg 2001; 30: 253-260.
• 42 Ahmad M, Nanda R, Bajwa AS. et al. Biomechanical testing of the locking compression plate: when does the distance between bone and implant significantly reduce construct stability?. Injury 2007; 38: 358-364.
• 43 Kowalski MJ, Schemitsch EH, Harrington RM. et al. A comparative biomechanical evaluation of a noncontacting plate and currently used devices for tibial fixation. J Trauma 1996; 40: 5-9.
• 44 Bouxsein ML, Seeman E. Quantifying the material and structural determinants of bone strength. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2009; 23: 741-753.
• 45 Hernandez CJ, Keaveny TM. A biomechanical perspective on bone quality. Bone 2006; 39: 1173-1181.
• 46 Johanson NA, Litrenta J, Zampini JM. et al. Surgical treatment options in patients with impaired bone quality. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 2237-2247.
• 47 Licata A. Bone density vs bone quality: what's a clinician to do?. Cleve Clin J Med 2009; 76: 331-336.
• 48 Seeman E, Delmas PD. Bone quality--the material and structural basis of bone strength and fragility. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 2250-2261.
• 49 Lorinson K, Loebcke S, Skalicky M. et al. Signalment differences in bone mineral content and bone mineral density in canine appendicular bones. A cadaveric study. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21: 147-151.
• 50 Lauten SD, Cox NR, Brawner WR. et al. Use of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry for noninvasive body composition measurements in clinically normal dogs. Am J Vet Res 2001; 62: 1295-1301.
• 51 Aper RL, Litsky AS, Roe SC. et al. Effect of bone diameter and eccentric loading on fatigue life of cortical screws used with interlocking nails. Am J Vet Res 2003; 64: 569-573.
• 52 Wilson J. Blood supply to developing, mature, and healing bone. In Sumner-Smith G. Editor Bone in Clinical Orthopedics. 2nd ed. New York: Thieme; 2002: 23-115.