Mechanical testing of 3.5 mm locking and non-locking bone plates

Summary

Locking plate technologies are being developed in order to provide the surgeon with advantages over previous bone plate systems (both locking and non-locking). Locking plate systems possess inherent biological advantages in fracture fixation by preserving the periosteal blood supply, serving as internal fixators. It is important to consider the strength of each orthopaedic implant as an important selection criterion while utilizing the reported advantages of locking plate systems to prevent catastrophic fracture failure. Mechanical testing of orthopaedic implants is a common method used to provide a surgeon with insight on mechanical capabilities, as well as to form a standardized method of plate comparison. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate and to quantify observed differences in the bending strength between the LCP (Limited Contact Plate), LC-DCP, 3.5 mm Broad LC-DCP (Limited Contact Dynamic Compression Plate), and SOP (String of Pearls) orthopaedic bone plates. The study design followed the ASTM standard test method for static bending properties of metallic bone plates, which is designed to measure mechanical properties of bone plates subjected to bending, the most common loading encountered in vivo. Single cycle four point bending was performed on each orthopaedic implant. The area moment of inertia, bending stiffness, bending strength, and bending structural stiffness were calculated for each implant. The results of this study demonstrated significant differences (p<0.001) in bending strength and stiffness between the four orthopaedic implants (3.5 Broad LC-DCP>SOP>LCP=LC-DCP). The 3.5 mm LCP should be expected to provide in vivo strength and stiffness similar to a comparable LC-DCP. The SOP should provide strength and stiffness that is greater than a comparable LC-DCP but less than a 3.5 mm Broad LC-DCP.

Keywords

Mechanical testing - SOP - LCP - LC-DCP

• References

• 1 Standard specification and test method for metallic bone plates, ASTM F382-99 (Reapproved 2003) e1, in 2003 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials.. West Conshohocken, PA, ASTM, 2003 .
• 2 Aquila AZ, Manos JM, Orlansky AS. et al. Invitrobio-mechanical comparison of limited contact dynamic compression plate and locking compression plate.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2005; 18: 220-226.
• 3 Carlson KR, Kraus KH, Kowaleski MP. Nonlinear stiffness profiles of external fixators constructed with composite rods.. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 700-704.
• 4 Kowaleski MP, Marston MT, Kraus KH. Nonlinear increasing axial gap stiffness in type II external skeletal fixation: Amechanical study. Vet Surg 2003; 32: 120-127.
• 5 Silbernagel JT, Johnson AL, Pijanowski GJ. et al. A mechanical comparison of 4.5 mm narrow and 3.5 mm broad plating systems for stabilization of gapped fracture models.. Vet Surg 2004; 33: 173-177.
• 6 Kraus KH, Wotton HM, Rand WM. Mechanical comparison of two external fixator clamp designs.. Vet Surg 1998; 27: 224-230.
• 7 Kraus KH, Kadiyala S, Wotton HM. et al. Critically sized osteo-periosteal femoral defects: A dog model.. J Invest Surg 1999; 12: 115-124.
• 8 Frigg R. Locking compression plate (LCP). An osteosynthesis plate based on the dynamic compression plate and the point contact fixator (PCFix).. Injury 2001; 32: 63-66.
• 9 Schutz M, Sudkamp NP. Revolution in plate osteosynthesis: new internal fixator systems.. J Orthop Sci 2003; 8: 252-258.
• 10 Perren SM. The concept of biological plating using the limited contact-dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP). Scientific background, design and application.. Injury 1991; 22: 1-41.
• 11 Perren SM, Klaue K, Pohler O. et al. The limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP).. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1990; 109: 304-310.
• 12 Abel EW, Sun J. Mechanical evaluation of anew minimum-contact plate for internal fracture fixation.. J Orthop Trauma 1998; 12: 382-386.
• 13 Gardner MJ, Brophy RH, Campbell D. et al. The mechanical behavior of locking compression plates compared with dynamic compression plates in a cadaver radius model.. J Orthop Trauma 2005; 9: 597-603.
• 14 Hammel SP, Pluhar GE, Novo RE. et al. Fatigue analysis of plates used for fracture stabilization in small dogs and cats.. Vet Surg 2006; 35: 573-578.
• 15 Florin M, Arzdorf M, Auer JA. Assessment of stiffness and strength of 4 different implants available for equine fracture treatment: A study on a 20° oblique long-bone fracture model using a bone substitute.. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 231-238.
• 16 Sommer C, Gautier E, Muller M. et al. First clinical results of the locking compression plate (LCP).. Injury 2003; 34 (Suppl) (Suppl. 02) B43-B54.
• 17 Fossum TW, Hedlund CS, Hulse DA. et al. Small Animal Surgery. 2nd ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2002: 880-1034.
• 18 Beer FP, Johnston ER. Mechanics of materials. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.; 1992: 184-189.
• 19 Taxhammar R, Colton C. AO - Instrumente und - Implantate, Technisches Handbuch.. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1995: 191-192.