Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024
Short arm splints for wrist stabilization: A mechanical material test and cadaveric radiography study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rasmussen Hans Christian, Bang Maya, Lilleøre Johanne Gade, Kipp Josephine Olsen, Lindgren Lars, Brüel Annemarie, Bue Mats, Mikkelsen Mads Kristian Duborg, Thomsen Jesper Skovhus, Stilling Maiken
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Documentation of the wrist stabilizing effect and mechanical properties of common splinting materials is warranted to support evidence-based condition-specific recommendations for wrist immobilization. The objectives of this study were to assess the wrist stabilizing properties of volar and dorsal short-arm splints made of four different materials and evaluate the mechanical properties of the splinting materials.
METHODS: Dorsal and volar short arm splints made of plaster of Paris (PoP) (eight layers), Woodcast (2 mm, rigid vented), X-lite (classic, two layers) or a 3D-printed material (polypropylene) were sequentially mounted on 10 cadaveric arm specimens and fixed in a radiolucent fixture. This enabled the evaluation of maximum wrist flexion and extension relative under an orthogonal load of 42 N via radiographic images. In addition, a three-point bending test was performed on ten sheet duplicates of each of the four splinting materials.
RESULTS: When applied as a volar splint, PoP had the highest capability to resist wrist flexion and extension. However, when applied as a dorsal splint, Woodcast exhibited a lower wrist flexion and a similar wrist extension. The 3D-printed splints-both volar and dorsal-showed the highest mean wrist flexion and extension. The mechanical properties of the Woodcast, X-lite and 3D-printed splinting materials were very similar. PoP exhibited distinct properties with a stiffness of 146 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 120-173) N/mm and a deflection at F max of 0.6 (95% CI: 0.5-0.7) mm compared to ≤7.7 (95% CI: 7.4-7.9) N/mm and ≥20 (95% CI: 18-22) mm for the other materials.
CONCLUSION: PoP displayed better wrist stabilizing properties and material stiffness than Woodcast, X-lite and 3D-printed polypropylene. When considering wrist stabilizing properties, PoP may still prove to be the preferred choice for wrist immobilization.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Not applicable.
METHODS: Dorsal and volar short arm splints made of plaster of Paris (PoP) (eight layers), Woodcast (2 mm, rigid vented), X-lite (classic, two layers) or a 3D-printed material (polypropylene) were sequentially mounted on 10 cadaveric arm specimens and fixed in a radiolucent fixture. This enabled the evaluation of maximum wrist flexion and extension relative under an orthogonal load of 42 N via radiographic images. In addition, a three-point bending test was performed on ten sheet duplicates of each of the four splinting materials.
RESULTS: When applied as a volar splint, PoP had the highest capability to resist wrist flexion and extension. However, when applied as a dorsal splint, Woodcast exhibited a lower wrist flexion and a similar wrist extension. The 3D-printed splints-both volar and dorsal-showed the highest mean wrist flexion and extension. The mechanical properties of the Woodcast, X-lite and 3D-printed splinting materials were very similar. PoP exhibited distinct properties with a stiffness of 146 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 120-173) N/mm and a deflection at F max of 0.6 (95% CI: 0.5-0.7) mm compared to ≤7.7 (95% CI: 7.4-7.9) N/mm and ≥20 (95% CI: 18-22) mm for the other materials.
CONCLUSION: PoP displayed better wrist stabilizing properties and material stiffness than Woodcast, X-lite and 3D-printed polypropylene. When considering wrist stabilizing properties, PoP may still prove to be the preferred choice for wrist immobilization.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Not applicable.