Cargando…

Biomechanical Performance of BoneHelix(®) Compared with Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing (ESIN) in a Pediatric Tibia Fracture Model

Tibial shaft fractures are common injuries in the pediatric and adolescent populations. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing (ESIN) is the treatment of choice for cases that require surgical stabilization. A new intramedullary device, BoneHelix(®) (BH), may be an alternative for use with fractures...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brandes, Laura Leonie, Nicolini, Luis Fernando, Greven, Johannes, Lichte, Philipp, Stopinski, Thomas Thaddäus, Sattler, Martin, Hildebrand, Frank, Pishnamaz, Miguel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8622329/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34833065
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/life11111189
_version_ 1784605668263591936
author Brandes, Laura Leonie
Nicolini, Luis Fernando
Greven, Johannes
Lichte, Philipp
Stopinski, Thomas Thaddäus
Sattler, Martin
Hildebrand, Frank
Pishnamaz, Miguel
author_facet Brandes, Laura Leonie
Nicolini, Luis Fernando
Greven, Johannes
Lichte, Philipp
Stopinski, Thomas Thaddäus
Sattler, Martin
Hildebrand, Frank
Pishnamaz, Miguel
author_sort Brandes, Laura Leonie
collection PubMed
description Tibial shaft fractures are common injuries in the pediatric and adolescent populations. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing (ESIN) is the treatment of choice for cases that require surgical stabilization. A new intramedullary device, BoneHelix(®) (BH), may be an alternative for use with fractures that cannot be satisfactorily stabilized with ESIN. This study aimed to assess the biomechanical performance of BH compared with ESIN in a porcine tibia fracture model, observing cyclic fatigue and load to failure. Computed tomography was used to monitor the implant position and to rule out unintended damage. No implant or bone failure occurred during the fatigue testing. An increase in the cumulative plastic displacement was observed in both test groups over the loading cycles applied. Both implant–bone constructs displayed a trend toward closure of the osteotomy gap. During the load-to-failure test, the average loads at failure in specimens instrumented with ESIN and BH were 5364 N (±723) and 4350 N (±893), respectively, which were not statistically significant (p = 0.11). The values of both groups were two to three times higher than the estimated maximal load (2000 N) during physiological weight bearing. The biomechanical results thus indicate equivalent performance and stability by the implants tested.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8622329
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86223292021-11-27 Biomechanical Performance of BoneHelix(®) Compared with Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing (ESIN) in a Pediatric Tibia Fracture Model Brandes, Laura Leonie Nicolini, Luis Fernando Greven, Johannes Lichte, Philipp Stopinski, Thomas Thaddäus Sattler, Martin Hildebrand, Frank Pishnamaz, Miguel Life (Basel) Article Tibial shaft fractures are common injuries in the pediatric and adolescent populations. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing (ESIN) is the treatment of choice for cases that require surgical stabilization. A new intramedullary device, BoneHelix(®) (BH), may be an alternative for use with fractures that cannot be satisfactorily stabilized with ESIN. This study aimed to assess the biomechanical performance of BH compared with ESIN in a porcine tibia fracture model, observing cyclic fatigue and load to failure. Computed tomography was used to monitor the implant position and to rule out unintended damage. No implant or bone failure occurred during the fatigue testing. An increase in the cumulative plastic displacement was observed in both test groups over the loading cycles applied. Both implant–bone constructs displayed a trend toward closure of the osteotomy gap. During the load-to-failure test, the average loads at failure in specimens instrumented with ESIN and BH were 5364 N (±723) and 4350 N (±893), respectively, which were not statistically significant (p = 0.11). The values of both groups were two to three times higher than the estimated maximal load (2000 N) during physiological weight bearing. The biomechanical results thus indicate equivalent performance and stability by the implants tested. MDPI 2021-11-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8622329/ /pubmed/34833065 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/life11111189 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Brandes, Laura Leonie
Nicolini, Luis Fernando
Greven, Johannes
Lichte, Philipp
Stopinski, Thomas Thaddäus
Sattler, Martin
Hildebrand, Frank
Pishnamaz, Miguel
Biomechanical Performance of BoneHelix(®) Compared with Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing (ESIN) in a Pediatric Tibia Fracture Model
title Biomechanical Performance of BoneHelix(®) Compared with Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing (ESIN) in a Pediatric Tibia Fracture Model
title_full Biomechanical Performance of BoneHelix(®) Compared with Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing (ESIN) in a Pediatric Tibia Fracture Model
title_fullStr Biomechanical Performance of BoneHelix(®) Compared with Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing (ESIN) in a Pediatric Tibia Fracture Model
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanical Performance of BoneHelix(®) Compared with Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing (ESIN) in a Pediatric Tibia Fracture Model
title_short Biomechanical Performance of BoneHelix(®) Compared with Elastic Stable Intramedullary Nailing (ESIN) in a Pediatric Tibia Fracture Model
title_sort biomechanical performance of bonehelix(®) compared with elastic stable intramedullary nailing (esin) in a pediatric tibia fracture model
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8622329/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34833065
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/life11111189
work_keys_str_mv AT brandeslauraleonie biomechanicalperformanceofbonehelixcomparedwithelasticstableintramedullarynailingesininapediatrictibiafracturemodel
AT nicoliniluisfernando biomechanicalperformanceofbonehelixcomparedwithelasticstableintramedullarynailingesininapediatrictibiafracturemodel
AT grevenjohannes biomechanicalperformanceofbonehelixcomparedwithelasticstableintramedullarynailingesininapediatrictibiafracturemodel
AT lichtephilipp biomechanicalperformanceofbonehelixcomparedwithelasticstableintramedullarynailingesininapediatrictibiafracturemodel
AT stopinskithomasthaddaus biomechanicalperformanceofbonehelixcomparedwithelasticstableintramedullarynailingesininapediatrictibiafracturemodel
AT sattlermartin biomechanicalperformanceofbonehelixcomparedwithelasticstableintramedullarynailingesininapediatrictibiafracturemodel
AT hildebrandfrank biomechanicalperformanceofbonehelixcomparedwithelasticstableintramedullarynailingesininapediatrictibiafracturemodel
AT pishnamazmiguel biomechanicalperformanceofbonehelixcomparedwithelasticstableintramedullarynailingesininapediatrictibiafracturemodel