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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |