Mechanical Testing of Sliding on Pivot-Locking Clamp (SOP-LC) Fracture Repair System in Four-Point Bending and Torsion

Abstract

Objectives The first objective of this study was to compare the mechanical performance of a straight and contoured rod for the sliding on pivot-locking clamp (SOP-LC) system. The second objective was to compare single-cycle bending and torsion of the SOP-LC rod-bone constructs to a bone gap model between two clamp configurations.

Study Design First experiment, 5 mm diameter rods from the 3.5 mm SOP-LC system, 4 straight and 4 bent rods were mechanically compared in four-point bending. The second experiment, 8 constructs with clamps on a single side of the rod and 8 constructs with clamps on alternating sides were compared in four-point bending and torsion. A torque limiting screwdriver at 2.5N was used for all constructs.

Results There were not significant differences between the noncontoured versus contoured rods. Constructs with clamps on a single side had a significantly higher yield load, yield displacement and bending strength, but the constructs with alternating clamps had a significantly higher initial torsional stiffness. There were no other significant differences. Mild clamp slippage and mild screw bending were noted in all the torsion tested constructs graphically with multiple stiffness slopes and visually on the post-tested constructs.

Conclusion Torque applied to initial screw placement may play a role in reducing clamp slippage. Although bending yield load, bending yield displacement, bending strength and torsional stiffness were improved by different clamp placement, clinically this will depend on fracture type. Further studies are needed for clinical significance.

Keywords

fracture repair - locking implant - SOP-LC - clamp rod - CRIF

Authors' Contribution

A.M. solely contributed to the conception, study design, acquisition of data, data analysis and interpretation. Also drafted, revised, and approved the submitted manuscript and are publicly responsible for the relevant content.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 03. Mai 2022

Angenommen: 19. Dezember 2023

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
02. Mai 2024

• References

• 1 Hudson CC, Pozzi A, Lewis DD. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis: applications and techniques in dogs and cats. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22 (03) 175-182
• 2 Horgan MA, Kellogg JX, Chesnut RM. Posterior cervical arthrodesis and stabilization: an early report using a novel lateral mass screw and rod technique. Neurosurgery 1999; 44 (06) 1267-1271 , discussion 1271–1272
• 3 Zahn K, Matis U. The clamp rod internal fixator application and results in 120 small animal fracture patients. Vet Comp Orthopaed 2004; 17 (03) 110-120
• 4 Zahn K, Frei R, Wunderle D. et al. Mechanical properties of 18 different AO bone plates and the clamp-rod internal fixation system tested on a gap model construct. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21 (03) 185-194
• 5 Bonin GA, Baker ST, Davis CA. et al. In vitro biomechanical comparison of 3.5 mm LC-DCP/intramedullary rod and 5 mm clamp-rod internal fixator (CRIF)/intramedullary rod fixation in a canine femoral gap model. Vet Surg 2014; 43 (07) 860-868
• 6 American Society for Testing and Materials.. Standard Specification and Test Method for Metallic Bone Plates, ASTM F382–17. (EDT 2018) Annual Book for ASTM Standards. West Conshohocken, PA: : ASTM; 2018
• 7 Cabassu JB, Kowaleski MP, Skorinko JK, Blake CA, Gaudette GR, Boudrieau RJ. Single cycle to failure in torsion of three standard and five locking plate constructs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24 (06) 418-425
• 8 Blake CA, Boudrieau RJ, Torrance BS. et al. Single cycle to failure in bending of three standard and five locking plates and plate constructs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24 (06) 408-417
• 9 Haerdi C, Costa RD, Auer JA, Linke B, Steiner A. Mechanical comparison of 3 different clamp and 2 different rod types of a new veterinary internal fixation system, 4.5/5.5-mm VetFix. Vet Surg 2003; 32 (05) 431-438
• 10 Stoffel K, Klaue K, Perren SM. Functional load of plates in fracture fixation in vivo and its correlate in bone healing. Injury 2000; 31 (Suppl. 02) S-B37-50
• 11 Ahmad M, Nanda R, Bajwa AS, Candal-Couto J, Green S, Hui AC. Biomechanical testing of the locking compression plate: when does the distance between bone and implant significantly reduce construct stability?. Injury 2007; 38 (03) 358-364
• 12 Tremolada G, Lewis DD, Paragnani KL, Conrad BP, Kim SE, Pozzi A. Biomechanical comparison of a 3.5-mm conical coupling plating system and a 3.5-mm locking compression plate applied as plate-rod constructs to an experimentally created fracture gap in femurs of canine cadavers. Am J Vet Res 2017; 78 (06) 712-717
• 13 Demner D, Garcia TC, Serdy MG, Hayashi K, Nir BA, Stover SM. Biomechanical comparison of mono- and bicortical screws in an experimentally induced gap fracture. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2014; 27 (06) 422-429
• 14 Field E, Parsons K, Etches J. et al. Effect of monocortical and bicortical screw numbers on the properties of a locking plate-intramedullary rod configuration. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2016; 29 (06) 459-465
• 15 Niederhäuser SK, Tepic S, Weber UT. Effect of screw position on single cycle to failure in bending and torsion of a locking plate-rod construct in a synthetic feline femoral gap model. Am J Vet Res 2015; 76 (05) 402-410
• 16 Haerdi-Landerer C, Steiner A, Linke B. et al. Comparison of double dynamic compression plating versus two configurations of an internal veterinary fixation device: results of in vitro mechanical testing using a bone substitute. Vet Surg 2002; 31 (06) 582-588