Cargando…

A biomechanical comparison between locked 3.5-mm plates and 4.5-mm plates for the treatment of simple bicondylar tibial plateau fractures: is bigger necessarily better?

BACKGROUND: Evolution of periarticular implant technology has led to stiffer, more stable fixation constructs. However, as plate options increase, comparisons between different sized constructs have not been performed. The purpose of this study is to biomechanically assess any significant difference...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hasan, Saqib, Ayalon, Omri B., Yoon, Richard S., Sood, Amit, Militano, Ulises, Cavanaugh, Mark, Liporace, Frank A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033793/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24276250
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10195-013-0275-6
_version_ 1782317872030154752
author Hasan, Saqib
Ayalon, Omri B.
Yoon, Richard S.
Sood, Amit
Militano, Ulises
Cavanaugh, Mark
Liporace, Frank A.
author_facet Hasan, Saqib
Ayalon, Omri B.
Yoon, Richard S.
Sood, Amit
Militano, Ulises
Cavanaugh, Mark
Liporace, Frank A.
author_sort Hasan, Saqib
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Evolution of periarticular implant technology has led to stiffer, more stable fixation constructs. However, as plate options increase, comparisons between different sized constructs have not been performed. The purpose of this study is to biomechanically assess any significant differences between 3.5- and 4.5-mm locked tibial plateau plates in a simple bicondylar fracture model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 24 synthetic composite bone models (12 Schatzker V and 12 Schatzker VI) specimens were tested. In each group, six specimens were fixed with a 3.5-mm locked proximal tibia plate and six specimens were fixed with a 4.5-mm locking plate. Testing measures included axial ramp loading to 500 N, cyclic loading to 10,000 cycles and axial load to failure. RESULTS: In the Schatzker V comparison model, there were no significant differences in inferior displacement or plastic deformation after 10, 100, 1,000 and 10,000 cycles. In regards to axial load, the 4.5-mm plate exhibited a significantly higher load to failure (P = 0.05). In the Schatzker VI comparison model, there were significant differences in inferior displacement or elastic deformation after 10, 100, 1,000, and 10,000 cycles. In regards to axial load, the 4.5-mm plate again exhibited a higher load to failure, but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: In the advent of technological advancement, periarticular locking plate technology has offered an invaluable option in treating bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. Comparing the biomechanical properties of 3.5- and 4.5-mm locking plates yielded no significant differences in cyclic loading, even in regards to elastic and plastic deformation. Not surprisingly, the 4.5-mm plate was more robust in axial load to failure, but only in the Schatzker V model. In our testing construct, overall, without significant differences, the smaller, lower-profile 3.5-mm plate seems to be a biomechanically sound option in the reconstruction of bicondylar plateau fractures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4033793
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40337932014-05-29 A biomechanical comparison between locked 3.5-mm plates and 4.5-mm plates for the treatment of simple bicondylar tibial plateau fractures: is bigger necessarily better? Hasan, Saqib Ayalon, Omri B. Yoon, Richard S. Sood, Amit Militano, Ulises Cavanaugh, Mark Liporace, Frank A. J Orthop Traumatol Original Article BACKGROUND: Evolution of periarticular implant technology has led to stiffer, more stable fixation constructs. However, as plate options increase, comparisons between different sized constructs have not been performed. The purpose of this study is to biomechanically assess any significant differences between 3.5- and 4.5-mm locked tibial plateau plates in a simple bicondylar fracture model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 24 synthetic composite bone models (12 Schatzker V and 12 Schatzker VI) specimens were tested. In each group, six specimens were fixed with a 3.5-mm locked proximal tibia plate and six specimens were fixed with a 4.5-mm locking plate. Testing measures included axial ramp loading to 500 N, cyclic loading to 10,000 cycles and axial load to failure. RESULTS: In the Schatzker V comparison model, there were no significant differences in inferior displacement or plastic deformation after 10, 100, 1,000 and 10,000 cycles. In regards to axial load, the 4.5-mm plate exhibited a significantly higher load to failure (P = 0.05). In the Schatzker VI comparison model, there were significant differences in inferior displacement or elastic deformation after 10, 100, 1,000, and 10,000 cycles. In regards to axial load, the 4.5-mm plate again exhibited a higher load to failure, but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: In the advent of technological advancement, periarticular locking plate technology has offered an invaluable option in treating bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. Comparing the biomechanical properties of 3.5- and 4.5-mm locking plates yielded no significant differences in cyclic loading, even in regards to elastic and plastic deformation. Not surprisingly, the 4.5-mm plate was more robust in axial load to failure, but only in the Schatzker V model. In our testing construct, overall, without significant differences, the smaller, lower-profile 3.5-mm plate seems to be a biomechanically sound option in the reconstruction of bicondylar plateau fractures. Springer International Publishing 2013-11-26 2014-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4033793/ /pubmed/24276250 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10195-013-0275-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2013 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Hasan, Saqib
Ayalon, Omri B.
Yoon, Richard S.
Sood, Amit
Militano, Ulises
Cavanaugh, Mark
Liporace, Frank A.
A biomechanical comparison between locked 3.5-mm plates and 4.5-mm plates for the treatment of simple bicondylar tibial plateau fractures: is bigger necessarily better?
title A biomechanical comparison between locked 3.5-mm plates and 4.5-mm plates for the treatment of simple bicondylar tibial plateau fractures: is bigger necessarily better?
title_full A biomechanical comparison between locked 3.5-mm plates and 4.5-mm plates for the treatment of simple bicondylar tibial plateau fractures: is bigger necessarily better?
title_fullStr A biomechanical comparison between locked 3.5-mm plates and 4.5-mm plates for the treatment of simple bicondylar tibial plateau fractures: is bigger necessarily better?
title_full_unstemmed A biomechanical comparison between locked 3.5-mm plates and 4.5-mm plates for the treatment of simple bicondylar tibial plateau fractures: is bigger necessarily better?
title_short A biomechanical comparison between locked 3.5-mm plates and 4.5-mm plates for the treatment of simple bicondylar tibial plateau fractures: is bigger necessarily better?
title_sort biomechanical comparison between locked 3.5-mm plates and 4.5-mm plates for the treatment of simple bicondylar tibial plateau fractures: is bigger necessarily better?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033793/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24276250
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10195-013-0275-6
work_keys_str_mv AT hasansaqib abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweenlocked35mmplatesand45mmplatesforthetreatmentofsimplebicondylartibialplateaufracturesisbiggernecessarilybetter
AT ayalonomrib abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweenlocked35mmplatesand45mmplatesforthetreatmentofsimplebicondylartibialplateaufracturesisbiggernecessarilybetter
AT yoonrichards abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweenlocked35mmplatesand45mmplatesforthetreatmentofsimplebicondylartibialplateaufracturesisbiggernecessarilybetter
AT soodamit abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweenlocked35mmplatesand45mmplatesforthetreatmentofsimplebicondylartibialplateaufracturesisbiggernecessarilybetter
AT militanoulises abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweenlocked35mmplatesand45mmplatesforthetreatmentofsimplebicondylartibialplateaufracturesisbiggernecessarilybetter
AT cavanaughmark abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweenlocked35mmplatesand45mmplatesforthetreatmentofsimplebicondylartibialplateaufracturesisbiggernecessarilybetter
AT liporacefranka abiomechanicalcomparisonbetweenlocked35mmplatesand45mmplatesforthetreatmentofsimplebicondylartibialplateaufracturesisbiggernecessarilybetter
AT hasansaqib biomechanicalcomparisonbetweenlocked35mmplatesand45mmplatesforthetreatmentofsimplebicondylartibialplateaufracturesisbiggernecessarilybetter
AT ayalonomrib biomechanicalcomparisonbetweenlocked35mmplatesand45mmplatesforthetreatmentofsimplebicondylartibialplateaufracturesisbiggernecessarilybetter
AT yoonrichards biomechanicalcomparisonbetweenlocked35mmplatesand45mmplatesforthetreatmentofsimplebicondylartibialplateaufracturesisbiggernecessarilybetter
AT soodamit biomechanicalcomparisonbetweenlocked35mmplatesand45mmplatesforthetreatmentofsimplebicondylartibialplateaufracturesisbiggernecessarilybetter
AT militanoulises biomechanicalcomparisonbetweenlocked35mmplatesand45mmplatesforthetreatmentofsimplebicondylartibialplateaufracturesisbiggernecessarilybetter
AT cavanaughmark biomechanicalcomparisonbetweenlocked35mmplatesand45mmplatesforthetreatmentofsimplebicondylartibialplateaufracturesisbiggernecessarilybetter
AT liporacefranka biomechanicalcomparisonbetweenlocked35mmplatesand45mmplatesforthetreatmentofsimplebicondylartibialplateaufracturesisbiggernecessarilybetter