Cargando…
Biomechanical evaluation of temporary epiphysiodesis at the femoral epiphysis using established devices from clinical practice
The aim of this study is to compare biomechanical features of different devices used in clinical routine for temporary epiphysiodesis (eight-Plate® and FlexTack(TM)). The tested implants were divided into four different groups (eight-Plate® vs. FlexTack(TM) for lateral and anterior implantation) á 1...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8016773/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33792782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10856-021-06515-9 |
_version_ | 1783673922739240960 |
---|---|
author | Struwe, Charlotte Walter, Sebastian G. Druschel, Claudia Bornemann, Rahel Ploeger, Milena Koob, Sebastian Placzek, Richard |
author_facet | Struwe, Charlotte Walter, Sebastian G. Druschel, Claudia Bornemann, Rahel Ploeger, Milena Koob, Sebastian Placzek, Richard |
author_sort | Struwe, Charlotte |
collection | PubMed |
description | The aim of this study is to compare biomechanical features of different devices used in clinical routine for temporary epiphysiodesis (eight-Plate® and FlexTack(TM)). The tested implants were divided into four different groups (eight-Plate® vs. FlexTack(TM) for lateral and anterior implantation) á 10 samples for testing implanted eight-Plate® vs. FlexTack(TM) in fresh frozen pig femora for maximum load forces (F(max)) and axial physis distance until implant failure (l(max)). A servo hydraulic testing machine (858 Mini Bionix 2) was used to exert and measure reproducible forces. Statistical analyses tested for normal distribution and significant (p < 0.05) differences in primary outcome parameters. There were no significant differences between the eight-Plate® lateral group and the FlexTack(TM) lateral group for neither F(max) (p = 0.46) nor l(max) (p = 0.65). There was a significant higher F(max) (p < 0.001) and l(max) (p = 0.001) measured in the eight-Plate® group compared to the FlexTack(TM) group when implanted anteriorly. In anterior temporary ephiphysiodesis, eight-Plate® demonstrated superior biomechanical stability. At this stage of research, there is no clear advantage of either implant and the choice remains within the individual preference of the surgeon. [Image: see text] |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8016773 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80167732021-04-16 Biomechanical evaluation of temporary epiphysiodesis at the femoral epiphysis using established devices from clinical practice Struwe, Charlotte Walter, Sebastian G. Druschel, Claudia Bornemann, Rahel Ploeger, Milena Koob, Sebastian Placzek, Richard J Mater Sci Mater Med Clinical Applications of Biomaterials The aim of this study is to compare biomechanical features of different devices used in clinical routine for temporary epiphysiodesis (eight-Plate® and FlexTack(TM)). The tested implants were divided into four different groups (eight-Plate® vs. FlexTack(TM) for lateral and anterior implantation) á 10 samples for testing implanted eight-Plate® vs. FlexTack(TM) in fresh frozen pig femora for maximum load forces (F(max)) and axial physis distance until implant failure (l(max)). A servo hydraulic testing machine (858 Mini Bionix 2) was used to exert and measure reproducible forces. Statistical analyses tested for normal distribution and significant (p < 0.05) differences in primary outcome parameters. There were no significant differences between the eight-Plate® lateral group and the FlexTack(TM) lateral group for neither F(max) (p = 0.46) nor l(max) (p = 0.65). There was a significant higher F(max) (p < 0.001) and l(max) (p = 0.001) measured in the eight-Plate® group compared to the FlexTack(TM) group when implanted anteriorly. In anterior temporary ephiphysiodesis, eight-Plate® demonstrated superior biomechanical stability. At this stage of research, there is no clear advantage of either implant and the choice remains within the individual preference of the surgeon. [Image: see text] Springer US 2021-04-01 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8016773/ /pubmed/33792782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10856-021-06515-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Clinical Applications of Biomaterials Struwe, Charlotte Walter, Sebastian G. Druschel, Claudia Bornemann, Rahel Ploeger, Milena Koob, Sebastian Placzek, Richard Biomechanical evaluation of temporary epiphysiodesis at the femoral epiphysis using established devices from clinical practice |
title | Biomechanical evaluation of temporary epiphysiodesis at the femoral epiphysis using established devices from clinical practice |
title_full | Biomechanical evaluation of temporary epiphysiodesis at the femoral epiphysis using established devices from clinical practice |
title_fullStr | Biomechanical evaluation of temporary epiphysiodesis at the femoral epiphysis using established devices from clinical practice |
title_full_unstemmed | Biomechanical evaluation of temporary epiphysiodesis at the femoral epiphysis using established devices from clinical practice |
title_short | Biomechanical evaluation of temporary epiphysiodesis at the femoral epiphysis using established devices from clinical practice |
title_sort | biomechanical evaluation of temporary epiphysiodesis at the femoral epiphysis using established devices from clinical practice |
topic | Clinical Applications of Biomaterials |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8016773/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33792782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10856-021-06515-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT struwecharlotte biomechanicalevaluationoftemporaryepiphysiodesisatthefemoralepiphysisusingestablisheddevicesfromclinicalpractice AT waltersebastiang biomechanicalevaluationoftemporaryepiphysiodesisatthefemoralepiphysisusingestablisheddevicesfromclinicalpractice AT druschelclaudia biomechanicalevaluationoftemporaryepiphysiodesisatthefemoralepiphysisusingestablisheddevicesfromclinicalpractice AT bornemannrahel biomechanicalevaluationoftemporaryepiphysiodesisatthefemoralepiphysisusingestablisheddevicesfromclinicalpractice AT ploegermilena biomechanicalevaluationoftemporaryepiphysiodesisatthefemoralepiphysisusingestablisheddevicesfromclinicalpractice AT koobsebastian biomechanicalevaluationoftemporaryepiphysiodesisatthefemoralepiphysisusingestablisheddevicesfromclinicalpractice AT placzekrichard biomechanicalevaluationoftemporaryepiphysiodesisatthefemoralepiphysisusingestablisheddevicesfromclinicalpractice |