Veterinary surgery : VS · 2010
In vitro comparison of a novel external fixator and traditional full-limb transfixation pin cast in horses.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Nutt James N, Southwood Louise L, Elce Yvonne A, Nunamaker David M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the mechanical properties and failure modes of a standardized short oblique distal radial metaphyseal osteotomy stabilized using either a transfixation pin cast (TPC), a modular-sidebar external skeletal fixator (ESF), or a solid-sidebar ESF (modular- or solid-ESF, respectively) using static or cyclic axial loading to failure.
STUDY DESIGN: In vitro study.
ANIMALS: Equine cadaver forelimbs.
METHODS: A 30 degrees oblique distal radial osteotomy was created and stabilized using 1 of the 3 fixation methods: (1) TPC, (2) modular-ESF, or (3) solid-ESF. Limbs were tested using static (TPC, modular-ESF, and solid-ESF) or cyclic (TPC and solid-ESF) axial loading to failure. The stiffness, yield load, yield displacement, failure load, and failure displacement for static loading and the cycles to failure for cyclic loading at 75% failure load were obtained. Data were analyzed using a Kruskal-Wallis test. Level of significance was P<.05.
RESULTS: The solid-ESF had a greater stiffness, higher yield and failure load and a lower yield and failure displacement than the TPC (P=.01) and the modular-ESF (P=.02). TPC had a higher yield load, failure load, and yield displacement than the modular-ESF (P=.01). Mean cycles to failure for TPC was 2996+/-657 at a load of 16,000 N and for solid-ESF 6560+/-90 cycles at a load of 25,000 N.
CONCLUSIONS: The solid-ESF was stiffer and stronger than the TPC and modular-ESF and failed at a greater number of cycles in axial loading compared with the TPC.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study is an initial step in evaluating the solid-ESF. Further testing needs to be performed, but this fixation may offer a viable alternative to the traditional TPC for stabilization of long bone fractures in adult horses.
STUDY DESIGN: In vitro study.
ANIMALS: Equine cadaver forelimbs.
METHODS: A 30 degrees oblique distal radial osteotomy was created and stabilized using 1 of the 3 fixation methods: (1) TPC, (2) modular-ESF, or (3) solid-ESF. Limbs were tested using static (TPC, modular-ESF, and solid-ESF) or cyclic (TPC and solid-ESF) axial loading to failure. The stiffness, yield load, yield displacement, failure load, and failure displacement for static loading and the cycles to failure for cyclic loading at 75% failure load were obtained. Data were analyzed using a Kruskal-Wallis test. Level of significance was P<.05.
RESULTS: The solid-ESF had a greater stiffness, higher yield and failure load and a lower yield and failure displacement than the TPC (P=.01) and the modular-ESF (P=.02). TPC had a higher yield load, failure load, and yield displacement than the modular-ESF (P=.01). Mean cycles to failure for TPC was 2996+/-657 at a load of 16,000 N and for solid-ESF 6560+/-90 cycles at a load of 25,000 N.
CONCLUSIONS: The solid-ESF was stiffer and stronger than the TPC and modular-ESF and failed at a greater number of cycles in axial loading compared with the TPC.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study is an initial step in evaluating the solid-ESF. Further testing needs to be performed, but this fixation may offer a viable alternative to the traditional TPC for stabilization of long bone fractures in adult horses.