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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Struwe, Charlotte, Walter, Sebastian G., Druschel, Claudia, Bornemann, Rahel, Ploeger, Milena, Koob, Sebastian, Placzek, Richard
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