BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022
Cerclage performance analysis - a biomechanical comparison of different techniques and materials.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hägerich L M, Dyrna F G E, Katthagen J C, Michel P A, Heilmann L F, Frank A, Raschke M J, Schliemann B, Riesenbeck O
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Wire cerclages play a fundamental role in fracture fixation. With an increasing variety of designs being commercially available the question arises which cerclage should be used. This study investigates the biomechanical properties of metallic and non-metallic cerclages and their different application-types. Furthermore, potential influence of muscular interposition between bone and cerclage constructs was tested.
METHODS: Samples of the following four different cerclage types were tested on 3D printed models of human humeri as well as on human cadaveric humeri with and without muscular interposition: Titanium Cable Cerclage (CC), Steel Wire Cerclage (SWC), Suture Tape (ST), Suture Tape Cerclage (STC) with both single- (sSTC) and double-loop application (dSTC). A preinstalled self-locking mechanism secured by the provided tensioner in the STCs being the main difference to the STs. Cyclic loading was performed to 1 kN and then linearly to a maximum load of 3 kN. Statistical analysis was performed using either one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey or Kruskal-Wallis and post-hoc Dunn test depending on normalization of data (p < 0.05).
RESULTS: Whilst all cerclage options could withstand high loads during failure testing, only within the CC and dSTC group, all samples reached the maximal testing load of 3000 N without any failure. The SWC reached 2977.5 ± 63.6 N, the ST 1970.8 ± 145.9 N, and the sSTC 1617.0 ± 341.6 N on average. Neither muscular interposition nor bone quality showed to have a negative influence on the biomechanical properties of the cerclage constructs, presenting no significant differences.
CONCLUSION: All tested cerclage constructs produce reliable stability but differ in their resulting compression forces, in a simplified fracture model. Therefore, non-metallic cerclage alternatives can provide similar stability with less compression and stiffness to metallic cable constructs, but they may offer several advantages and could possibly provide future benefits. Especially, by offering more elasticity without losing overall stability, may offer a biologic benefit. Installing any cerclage constructs should be performed carefully, especially if poor bone quality is present, as the tightening process leads to high forces on the construct.
METHODS: Samples of the following four different cerclage types were tested on 3D printed models of human humeri as well as on human cadaveric humeri with and without muscular interposition: Titanium Cable Cerclage (CC), Steel Wire Cerclage (SWC), Suture Tape (ST), Suture Tape Cerclage (STC) with both single- (sSTC) and double-loop application (dSTC). A preinstalled self-locking mechanism secured by the provided tensioner in the STCs being the main difference to the STs. Cyclic loading was performed to 1 kN and then linearly to a maximum load of 3 kN. Statistical analysis was performed using either one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey or Kruskal-Wallis and post-hoc Dunn test depending on normalization of data (p < 0.05).
RESULTS: Whilst all cerclage options could withstand high loads during failure testing, only within the CC and dSTC group, all samples reached the maximal testing load of 3000 N without any failure. The SWC reached 2977.5 ± 63.6 N, the ST 1970.8 ± 145.9 N, and the sSTC 1617.0 ± 341.6 N on average. Neither muscular interposition nor bone quality showed to have a negative influence on the biomechanical properties of the cerclage constructs, presenting no significant differences.
CONCLUSION: All tested cerclage constructs produce reliable stability but differ in their resulting compression forces, in a simplified fracture model. Therefore, non-metallic cerclage alternatives can provide similar stability with less compression and stiffness to metallic cable constructs, but they may offer several advantages and could possibly provide future benefits. Especially, by offering more elasticity without losing overall stability, may offer a biologic benefit. Installing any cerclage constructs should be performed carefully, especially if poor bone quality is present, as the tightening process leads to high forces on the construct.