Are circular external fixators weakened by the use of hemispheric washers?

Denis J Marcellin-Little, Simon C. Roe, Gian Luca Rovesti, Alessandro Bosio, Antonio Ferretti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives - To compare the axial mechanical stability of 3 circular external fixators systems with and without hemispheric washers. Study Design - Experimental study. Methods - The axial stiffness and load necessary to produce 0.5 and 1 mm of displacement of 10 circular external fixator constructs from 3 manufacturers were tested on a materials testing machine. The constructs tested included the Small Bone fixator (SBF; Hofmann S.a.S., Monza, Italy), the IMEX ring fixator (IMEX Inc., Longview, TX), and the Multiplanar C-Fix (MCF; PanVet Distribuzione, Seriate, Italy). Five configurations were tested for each construct: (1) conventional nut fixation, (2) hemispheric washer fixation with connecting rods offset by 0, (3) 1, and (4) 2 holes, and (5) with a ring placed at maximum angulation. Results - The loads resisted at 0.5 and 1 mm of displacement did not differ when frame configurations were compared (P = .25733 and .33769, respectively). The linear stiffness of the following configurations were decreasingly stiff: standard constructs, hemispheric washers with connecting rods perpendicular to rings, hemispheric washers with connecting rods offset by 1 hole, hemispheric washers with connecting rods offset by 2 holes, and ring offset in relation to bone model. The SBF constructs tested were 34% and 41% more rigid than the IMEX and MCF constructs tested despite the larger diameter of the connecting rods for the IMEX frames (6 mm) compared with the SBF frames (5 mm). The IMEX constructs tested were 6% more rigid than the MCF constructs tested. Conclusions - Adding hemispheric washers and angling connecting rods in relation to rings did not influence the loads resisted at 0.5 and 1 mm displacement but decreased construct stiffness. Clinical Relevance - The use of hemispheric washers had minor effects on the biomechanical performance of fixator frames tested in this study when used to angle a ring in relation to connecting rods for circular external fixators.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)367-374
Number of pages8
JournalVeterinary Surgery
Volume31
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

External Fixators
Italy
bones
materials testing
sport fishing
nuts
Materials Testing
Bone and Bones
Nuts
experimental design
Research Design
methodology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • veterinary(all)

Cite this

Are circular external fixators weakened by the use of hemispheric washers? / Marcellin-Little, Denis J; Roe, Simon C.; Rovesti, Gian Luca; Bosio, Alessandro; Ferretti, Antonio.

In: Veterinary Surgery, Vol. 31, No. 4, 01.01.2002, p. 367-374.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Marcellin-Little, Denis J ; Roe, Simon C. ; Rovesti, Gian Luca ; Bosio, Alessandro ; Ferretti, Antonio. / Are circular external fixators weakened by the use of hemispheric washers?. In: Veterinary Surgery. 2002 ; Vol. 31, No. 4. pp. 367-374.
@article{39edf30c8d6c4a2b99e4d55696bd5a50,
title = "Are circular external fixators weakened by the use of hemispheric washers?",
abstract = "Objectives - To compare the axial mechanical stability of 3 circular external fixators systems with and without hemispheric washers. Study Design - Experimental study. Methods - The axial stiffness and load necessary to produce 0.5 and 1 mm of displacement of 10 circular external fixator constructs from 3 manufacturers were tested on a materials testing machine. The constructs tested included the Small Bone fixator (SBF; Hofmann S.a.S., Monza, Italy), the IMEX ring fixator (IMEX Inc., Longview, TX), and the Multiplanar C-Fix (MCF; PanVet Distribuzione, Seriate, Italy). Five configurations were tested for each construct: (1) conventional nut fixation, (2) hemispheric washer fixation with connecting rods offset by 0, (3) 1, and (4) 2 holes, and (5) with a ring placed at maximum angulation. Results - The loads resisted at 0.5 and 1 mm of displacement did not differ when frame configurations were compared (P = .25733 and .33769, respectively). The linear stiffness of the following configurations were decreasingly stiff: standard constructs, hemispheric washers with connecting rods perpendicular to rings, hemispheric washers with connecting rods offset by 1 hole, hemispheric washers with connecting rods offset by 2 holes, and ring offset in relation to bone model. The SBF constructs tested were 34{\%} and 41{\%} more rigid than the IMEX and MCF constructs tested despite the larger diameter of the connecting rods for the IMEX frames (6 mm) compared with the SBF frames (5 mm). The IMEX constructs tested were 6{\%} more rigid than the MCF constructs tested. Conclusions - Adding hemispheric washers and angling connecting rods in relation to rings did not influence the loads resisted at 0.5 and 1 mm displacement but decreased construct stiffness. Clinical Relevance - The use of hemispheric washers had minor effects on the biomechanical performance of fixator frames tested in this study when used to angle a ring in relation to connecting rods for circular external fixators.",
author = "Marcellin-Little, {Denis J} and Roe, {Simon C.} and Rovesti, {Gian Luca} and Alessandro Bosio and Antonio Ferretti",
year = "2002",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1053/jvet.2002.33604",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "367--374",
journal = "Veterinary Surgery",
issn = "0161-3499",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are circular external fixators weakened by the use of hemispheric washers?

AU - Marcellin-Little, Denis J

AU - Roe, Simon C.

AU - Rovesti, Gian Luca

AU - Bosio, Alessandro

AU - Ferretti, Antonio

PY - 2002/1/1

Y1 - 2002/1/1

N2 - Objectives - To compare the axial mechanical stability of 3 circular external fixators systems with and without hemispheric washers. Study Design - Experimental study. Methods - The axial stiffness and load necessary to produce 0.5 and 1 mm of displacement of 10 circular external fixator constructs from 3 manufacturers were tested on a materials testing machine. The constructs tested included the Small Bone fixator (SBF; Hofmann S.a.S., Monza, Italy), the IMEX ring fixator (IMEX Inc., Longview, TX), and the Multiplanar C-Fix (MCF; PanVet Distribuzione, Seriate, Italy). Five configurations were tested for each construct: (1) conventional nut fixation, (2) hemispheric washer fixation with connecting rods offset by 0, (3) 1, and (4) 2 holes, and (5) with a ring placed at maximum angulation. Results - The loads resisted at 0.5 and 1 mm of displacement did not differ when frame configurations were compared (P = .25733 and .33769, respectively). The linear stiffness of the following configurations were decreasingly stiff: standard constructs, hemispheric washers with connecting rods perpendicular to rings, hemispheric washers with connecting rods offset by 1 hole, hemispheric washers with connecting rods offset by 2 holes, and ring offset in relation to bone model. The SBF constructs tested were 34% and 41% more rigid than the IMEX and MCF constructs tested despite the larger diameter of the connecting rods for the IMEX frames (6 mm) compared with the SBF frames (5 mm). The IMEX constructs tested were 6% more rigid than the MCF constructs tested. Conclusions - Adding hemispheric washers and angling connecting rods in relation to rings did not influence the loads resisted at 0.5 and 1 mm displacement but decreased construct stiffness. Clinical Relevance - The use of hemispheric washers had minor effects on the biomechanical performance of fixator frames tested in this study when used to angle a ring in relation to connecting rods for circular external fixators.

AB - Objectives - To compare the axial mechanical stability of 3 circular external fixators systems with and without hemispheric washers. Study Design - Experimental study. Methods - The axial stiffness and load necessary to produce 0.5 and 1 mm of displacement of 10 circular external fixator constructs from 3 manufacturers were tested on a materials testing machine. The constructs tested included the Small Bone fixator (SBF; Hofmann S.a.S., Monza, Italy), the IMEX ring fixator (IMEX Inc., Longview, TX), and the Multiplanar C-Fix (MCF; PanVet Distribuzione, Seriate, Italy). Five configurations were tested for each construct: (1) conventional nut fixation, (2) hemispheric washer fixation with connecting rods offset by 0, (3) 1, and (4) 2 holes, and (5) with a ring placed at maximum angulation. Results - The loads resisted at 0.5 and 1 mm of displacement did not differ when frame configurations were compared (P = .25733 and .33769, respectively). The linear stiffness of the following configurations were decreasingly stiff: standard constructs, hemispheric washers with connecting rods perpendicular to rings, hemispheric washers with connecting rods offset by 1 hole, hemispheric washers with connecting rods offset by 2 holes, and ring offset in relation to bone model. The SBF constructs tested were 34% and 41% more rigid than the IMEX and MCF constructs tested despite the larger diameter of the connecting rods for the IMEX frames (6 mm) compared with the SBF frames (5 mm). The IMEX constructs tested were 6% more rigid than the MCF constructs tested. Conclusions - Adding hemispheric washers and angling connecting rods in relation to rings did not influence the loads resisted at 0.5 and 1 mm displacement but decreased construct stiffness. Clinical Relevance - The use of hemispheric washers had minor effects on the biomechanical performance of fixator frames tested in this study when used to angle a ring in relation to connecting rods for circular external fixators.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036654099&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036654099&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1053/jvet.2002.33604

DO - 10.1053/jvet.2002.33604

M3 - Article

C2 - 12094351

AN - SCOPUS:0036654099

VL - 31

SP - 367

EP - 374

JO - Veterinary Surgery

JF - Veterinary Surgery

SN - 0161-3499

IS - 4

ER -