Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2000; 13(02): 65-72
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632633
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Evaluation of Stiffness and Stress of External Fixators with Curved Acrylic Connecting Bars

R. Shahar
1   Section of Surgery, Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Koret School of Veterinary Medicine, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 20 December 1998

Accepted 16 August 1999

Publication Date:
09 February 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

The use of acrylic connecting bars in external fixators has become widespread in veterinary orthopaedics. One of the main advantages of an acrylic connecting bar is the ability to contour it into a curved shape. This allows the surgeon to place the transcortical pins according to safety and convenience considerations, without being bound by the requirement of the standard stainless steel connecting bar, that all transcortical pins be in the same plane.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the stiffness of unilateral and bilateral medium-sized external fixator frames with different curvatures of acrylic connecting bars. Finite element analysis was used to model the various frames and obtain their stiffness under four types of load: Axial compression, four-point medio-lateral bending, fourpoint antero-posterior bending and torsion. The analysis also provided the maximal pin stresses occurring in each frame for each loading condition.

Based on the results of this study, curvatures of acrylic connecting bars of up to a maximal angular difference between pins of 25° will result in very similar stiffness and maximal pin stresses to those of the equivalent, uniplanar stainless steel system. In both unilateral and bilateral systems the stiffness decreases slightly as angulation increases for axial compression and medio-lateral bending, increases slightly for torsion and increases substantially for antero-posterior bending.

External fixator systems with curved acrylic connecting bars are commonly used in veterinary orthopaedics. This paper evaluates the biomechanical performance of such systems by applying the finite element analysis method. It shows that external fixators with curved acrylic connecting bars exhibit stiffness and maximal pin stresses which are similar to those of the standard stainless steel system.

Keywords

External fixator - acrylic connecting bar - stiffness - stress - finite element analysis
 

  • REFFERENCES

  • 1 Anderson MA, Mann FA, Wagner-Mann C. et al. A comparison of non threaded, enhanced threaded, and Ellis fixation pins used in type I external skeletal fixators in dogs. Vet Surg 1993; 22: 482-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bathe KJ. Finite Element Procedures. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1-330 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Brekelmans WAM, Poort HW, Slooff TJ. A new method to analyze the mechanical behavior of skeletal part. Acta Orthop Scand 1972; 43: 301-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Chao EYS, Kasman RA, An KN. Rigidity and stress analyses of external fracture fixation devices-a theoretical approach. J Biomech 1982; 15: 971-83.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Chao EYS, An KN. Biomechanical analysis of external fixation devices for the treatment of open bone fractures. in Gallagher RH, Simon BR, Johnson PC, Gross JF. (eds): Finite Elements in Biomechanics. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 1982: 195-222.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Clary EM, Roe SC. In vitro biomechanical and histological assessment of pilot hole diameter for positive-profile external skeletal fixation pins in canine tibiae. Vet Surg 1996; 25: 453-62.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cross AR, Aron DN, Budsberg SC, Foutz TL, Pearman BT, Evans MD. Validation of a finite element model of the Kirschner- Ehmer external skeletal fixation system. Am J Vet Res 1999; 60: 615-20.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Davis M, Schulz KS, Fawcett A. et al. Flexural and torsional analysis of five acrylics for use i n external skeletal fixation. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1998; 11: 53-8.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Drijber FLIP, Finlay JB, Dempsey AJ. Evaluation of linear finite element analysis models ‘ assumptions for external fixation device. J Biomech 1992; 25: 849-55.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Duda NG, Kirchner H, Wilke HJ, Claes L. A method to determine the 3-D stiffness of fracture fixation devices and its application to predict inter-fragmentary movement. J Biomech 1998; 31: 247-52.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Egan JM, Phil D, Shearer JR. Behavior of an external fixation frame incorporating an angular separation of the fixator pins. A finite element approach. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1986; 223: 265-74.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Egger EL. Static strength evaluation of six external skeletal fixation configurations. Vet Surg 1983; 12: 130-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Font J, Franch J, Cairo J. A review of 116 clinical cases treated with external fixators. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1997; 10: 173-82.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Fox SM, Bray JC, Guerin SR. et al. Antebrachial deformities in the dog: Treatment with external fixation. J Small Anim Pract 1995; 36: 315-20.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Harari J. External skeletal fixation. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1992; 22: 1-238.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Herndon GD, Egger EL, Fitzgerald DG. The effect of contouring the connecting column in the acrylic-pin external fixator. Vet Surg 1998; 27: 508.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Huiskes R, Chao EYS. A survey of finite element analysis in orthopaedic biomechanics: The first decade. J Biomech 1983; 16: 385-409.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Huiskes R, Chao EYS, Crippen TE. Parametric analyses of pin-bone stresses in external fracture fixation devices. J Orthop Res 1985; 03: 341-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Huiskes R, Verdonschot N. Biomechanics of artificial joints: The hip. in Mow VC, Hayes WC. (eds): Basic Orthopaedic Biomechanics (ed 2). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1997: 395-460.
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Hulse D, Auer J, Nelson J. Finite element analysis of a fracture fixation system. Vet Surg 1987; 16: 93.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Johnson WD, Fischer DA. Skeletal stabilization with a multiplane external fixation device. Biomechanical evaluation and finite element model. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1983; 180: 34-43.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kenwright J, Goodship AE. Controlled mechanical stimulation in the treatment of tibial fractures. Clin Orthopaedics 1989; 241: 36-47.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Nepola JV. External fixation. in Rockwood CA, Green DP. (eds): Fractures in Adults (ed 4). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996: 229-59.
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Okrasinski EB, Pardo AD, Graehler RA. Biomechanical evaluation of acrylic external skeletal fixation in dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1991; 199: 1590-3.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Oni OOA, Capper M, Soutis C. A finite element analysis of the effect of pin distribution on the rigidity of a unilateral external fixation system. Injury 1993; 24: 525-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pollo FE, Hyman WA, Hulse DA. The role of the external bar in a 6-pin type I external skeletal fixation device. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1993; 06: 75-9.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Prendergast PJ. Finite element models in tissue mechanics and orthopaedic implant design. Clin Biomech 1997; 12: 343-66.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Roe SC, Keo T. Epoxy putty for free form external skeletal fixator. Vet Surg 1997; 26: 472-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tomlinson JL, Constantinescu GM. Acrylic external skeletal fixation of fractures. Comp Con t Ed 1991; 13: 235-40.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Willer RL, Egger EL, Histand MB. Comparison of stainless steel versus acrylic for the connecting bar of external skeletal fixators. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1991; 27: 541-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar