The Journal of hand surgery · 2008
Biomechanical characteristics of nonbridging external fixators for distal radius fractures.
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.
Yamako Go, Ishii Yoshinori, Matsuda Yoshikazu, Noguchi Hideo, Hara Toshiaki
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Nonbridging external fixation is becoming popular for distal radius fractures, although its biomechanical characteristics have not been documented. This study evaluated the biomechanical characteristics of nonbridging external fixators for distal radius fractures.
METHODS: We tested 3 currently available nonbridging fixators (F-Wrist fixator, Hoffman II Compact, and Pennig Dynamic Wrist Fixator) and determined their relative stiffness under axial compression, torsion, and bending moments (dorsal, volar, radial, and ulnar aspects) using a uniform unstable distal radius fracture model. The contact pressure and its total load on the fracture plane were also measured to evaluate the mechanical stimuli at the stable fracture site using a pressure-sensitive conductive rubber sensor.
RESULTS: Differences were observed in the stiffness: the Pennig fixator was the stiffest, whereas the F-Wrist fixator was the least rigid. The total load transmitted from the wrist joint to the fracture plane depended on the fixator stiffness in axial compression.
CONCLUSIONS: By determining the biomechanical characteristics of nonbridging external fixators, these data may help the clinician when deciding on a particular device for nonbridging external fixation.
METHODS: We tested 3 currently available nonbridging fixators (F-Wrist fixator, Hoffman II Compact, and Pennig Dynamic Wrist Fixator) and determined their relative stiffness under axial compression, torsion, and bending moments (dorsal, volar, radial, and ulnar aspects) using a uniform unstable distal radius fracture model. The contact pressure and its total load on the fracture plane were also measured to evaluate the mechanical stimuli at the stable fracture site using a pressure-sensitive conductive rubber sensor.
RESULTS: Differences were observed in the stiffness: the Pennig fixator was the stiffest, whereas the F-Wrist fixator was the least rigid. The total load transmitted from the wrist joint to the fracture plane depended on the fixator stiffness in axial compression.
CONCLUSIONS: By determining the biomechanical characteristics of nonbridging external fixators, these data may help the clinician when deciding on a particular device for nonbridging external fixation.