Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2015; 28(04): 227-233
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-14-07-0102
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

In vitro biomechanical testing of different configurations of acrylic external skeletal fixator constructs

S. K. Tyagi
1   Division of Surgery, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
H. P. Aithal
1   Division of Surgery, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
P. Kinjavdeka
1   Division of Surgery, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
Sharma Amarpal
1   Division of Surgery, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
A. M. Pawde
1   Division of Surgery, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
T. Srivastava
1   Division of Surgery, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
J. Singh
1   Division of Surgery, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
D. N. Madhu
1   Division of Surgery, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Uttar Pradesh, India
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received:04 July 2014

Accepted:17 March 2015

Publication Date:
28 December 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objective: To evaluate the in vitro biomechanical properties of four different configurations of acrylic external skeletal fixator constructs.

Materials and methods: Simulated bone constructs were prepared using two segments of 20 mm ultra-high-density polyethylene rods with a gap of 5 mm. The full pins (1.5 mm) were passed through the proximal and distal segments of ultra-high-density polyethylene rods, in the same plane, parallel to each other in configuration U, and were crossed in the M1, M2 and C configurations at a 90° angle to each other. Configuration U was a single bilateral uniplanar construct, M1 was a double orthogonal bilateral construct, M2 was a double orthogonal bilateral construct with proximal and distal connecting articulations, and C was a double orthogonal bilateral construct with proximal and distal circumferential articulations. Temporary scaffolds of different external skeletal fixator configurations were constructed using commercially available polyvinyl chloride pipes (20 mm) connected and secured to the fixation pins at a fixed distance from the rods. Acrylic powder (polymer) mixed with liquid (monomer) was poured into the pipes and allowed to solidify to form the side bars and rings. The external skeletal fixator constructs were then subjected to axial compression, cranio-caudal three-point bending and torsion (n = 4 each) using a universal testing machine. Mechanical parameters, namely stress, strain, modulus of elasticity, stiffness and bending moment of fixator constructs, were determined from load-displacement curves.

Results: Configuration U was the weakest and configuration C was the strongest under all the testing modes. Under compression, the M1, M2 and C configurations were similar. Under bending, a significant difference was observed among the uniplanar, multi -planar and circular configurations with no difference between M1 and M2. However, under torsion, all the external skeletal fixator configurations differed significantly.

Clinical significance: The freeform external skeletal fixator using acrylic as a replacement for a metallic bar may be useful to treat bone fractures and luxations in small animals, as it is mechanically strong, lightweight, economical, and pins can be passed from any direction depending upon the clinical situation.

Keywords

Biomechanical study - acrylic fixator - external skeletal fixation
 

  • References

  • 1 David PM, Nirmal CT. Biomechanics of external fixation: A review of the literature. Bull Hosp Joint Dis Ortho Inst 2007; 65: 294-299.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Marcellin-Little DJ. Fracture treatment with circular external fixation. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1999; 29: 1153-1170.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lewis DD, Cross AR, Carmichael V. et al. Recent advances in external skeletal fixation. J Small Anim Pract 2001; 42: 103-112.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Pettit GD. History of external skeletal fixation. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1992; 22: 1-10.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Okrasinski ER, Pardo AD, Graehler RA. Biomechanical evaluation of acrylic external skeletal fixation in dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1991; 199: 1590-1593.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Willer RL, Egger EL, Histand MB. Comparison of stainless steel versus acrylic for the connecting bar of external fixators. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1991; 27: 541-548.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ross JT, Matthiesen DT. The use of multiple pin and methylmethacrylate external skeletal fixation for the treatment of orthopaedic injuries in the dog and cat. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1993; 6: 115-121.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Roe SC, Keo T. Epoxy putty for free-form external skeletal fixators. Vet Surg 1997; 26: 472-477.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kumar P, Aithal HP, Kinjavdekar P. et al. Epoxy-pin external skeletal fixation for treatment of open fractures or dislocations in 36 dogs. Indian J Vet Surg 2012; 33: 128-132.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Aithal HP, Kinjavdekar P. Amarpal. et al. Epoxy-pin external skeletal fixation for management of open long bone fractures in calves and foals. A review of 16 cases. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Congress of Indian Society for Veterinary Surgery. 2010. December 8-10 Puducherry, India: 89-90.
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Inoue S, Ichida M, Imai R. et al. External skeletal fixation using methyl methacrylate-technique and indication with clinical report. Int Orthop 1977; 1: 64-69.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Paley D. Biomechanics of the llizarov external fixator. In Bianchi-Maiocchi A, Aronson J.. editors Operative Principles of Ilizarov: Fracture, Treatment, Nonunion, Osteomyelitis, Lengthening Deformity Correction. Milan, Italy: Williams & Wilkins; 1991: 31-41.
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Calhoun JH, Li F, Ledbetter BR. et al. Biomechanics of Ilizarov fixator for fracture fixation. Clin Orthop 1992; 280: 15-22.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ilizarov GA. The tension-stress effect on the genesis and growth of tissues: part 1. The influence of stability of fixation and soft tissue preservation. Clin Orthop 1989; 238: 249-281.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rubin CT, Lanyon LE. Regulation of bone formation by applied dynamic loads. J Bone Joint Surg 1984; 66 A 397-402.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Wu JJ, Shyr HS, Chao EYS. et al. Comparison of osteotomy healing under external fixation devices with different stiffness characteristics. J Bone Joint Surg 1984; 66 A 1258-1264.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Chao EYS, Briggs BT, McCoy MT. Theoretical and experimental analyses of Hoffmann-Vidal external fixation system. In Brooker AF, Edwards CC.. editors External Fixation: The Current State of the Art. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1979: 345-369.
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Egger EL. Static strength evaluation of six external skeletal fixation configurations. Vet Surg 1983; 12: 130-136.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Brinker WO, Verstraete MS, Soutas-Little RW. Stiffness studies on various configurations and types of external fixators. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1985; 21: 801-808.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 White DT, Bronson DG, Welch RD. A mechanical comparison of veterinary linear external skeletal fixation system. Vet Surg 2003; 32: 507-514.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Tyagi SK, Aithal HP, Kinjavdekar P. et al. Comparative evaluation of in vitro mechanical properties of different configurations of epoxy-pin external skeletal fixation systems. Vet Surg 2014; 43: 355-360.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sandor IB. Mechanics of Solids. In Kreith F.. editor The CRC Handbook of Mechanical Engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1999: pg.1-125.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bouvy BM, Markel MD, Chelikani S. et al. Ex vivo biomechanics of Kirschner-Ehmer external skeletal fixation applied to canine tibiae. Vet Surg 1993; 22: 194-207.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kraus KH, Wotton HM, Rand WM. Mechanical comparison of two external fixator clamp configurations. Vet Surg 1998; 27: 224-230.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Norris JL, Kraus KH. Effect of a supplemental plate on stiffness of type I external fixators. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual American College of Veterinary Surgeons Symposium; 1999 September 30-October 3; San Francisco, CA, USA. Vet Surg 1999; 28: 401.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Alan RC, Daniel DL, Steve R. et al. Effect of various distal ring block configurations on the biomechanical properties of circular external skeletal fixators for use in dogs and cats. Am J Vet Res 2004; 65: 393-398.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kowaleski MP, Marston MT, Kraus KH. Nonlinear Increasing axial gap stiffness in type II external skeletal fixation: A mechanical study. Vet Surg 2003; 32: 120-127.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Marcellin-Little DJ. External skeletal fixation. In Slatter DH.. editor A Text Book of Small Animal Surgery. 3rd ed. vol 2 Philadelphia: Saunders; 2002: 1818-1834.
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Ferretti A. The application of the llizarov technique to vet med. In Branchi-Maiocchi A, Aronson J.. editors Operative Principles of Ilizarov. Milan, Italy: Medi Surgical Video; 1991: 551-570.
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Shahar R. Relative stiffness and stress of type I and type II external fixators: Acrylic versus stainless-steel connecting bars--a theoretical approach. Vet Surg 2000; 29: 59-69.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Chandy G, Nagarajan L, Suresh RK. Acrylic external skeletal fixator connecting bars using corrugated PVC tube moulds. Indian Vet J 2007; 84: 875-876.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Julie B, Swam KV, Rajankutty K. et al. Acrylic external skeletal fixator for treatment of long bone fractures in dogs. Indian J Vet Surg 2007; 28: 6-10.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Anderson GI. Polymethylmethacrylate: a review of the implications and complications of its use in orthopaedic surgery. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1988; 2: 74-79.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Martinez SA, Arnokzky SP, Flo GL. et al. Dissipation of heat during polymerization of acrylics used for external skeletal fixator connecting bars. Vet Surg 1997; 26: 290-294.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hall C. Polymers: molecular structure. In: Polymer Materials-An Introduction for Technologists and Scientists. 1st Ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1981: 1-91.
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Mascia L. Thermoplastics: Materials Engineering. New York: Applied Science Publishers; 1982: 120-179.
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Frankel VH, Nordin M. Biomechanics of the bone. In: Basic Biomechanics of the Skeletal System. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Lippincott William and Wilkins; 2001: 26-59.
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Lauer SK, Aron DN, Evans MD. Finite element method evaluation: articulations and diagonals in an 8-pin type 1B external skeletal fixator. Vet Surg 2000; 29: 28-37.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Johnson AL, Decamp CE. External skeletal fixation: linear fixators. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1999; 29: 1135-1143.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar