Comparative biomechanics of hybrid external fixation

Kevin J. Pugh, Philip R Wolinsky, D. Pienkowski, D. Banit, J. M. Dawson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the elastic stiffness, in several loading modes, of commercially available hybrid external fixation systems. Design: Laboratory investigation using a Polyvinylchloride pipe periarticular tibia fracture model. Setting: Simulated periarticular fractures were created in an in vitro tibia fracture model. Instrumented specimens and intact controls were elastically tested in a biomaterials testing system. Intervention: Groups of simulated periarticular tibia fractures were stabilized with one of six different hybrid external fixator designs. Main Outcome Measurements: Elastic stiffness of each specimen was measured in compression, torsion, flexion bending, extension bending, and varus/valgus bending. Results: Fixators with multiple levels of fixation in the periarticular fragment, regardless of design, were stiffer than those with one level. Specifically, the EBI Ring Connector fixator was stiffer than all others in all modes of testing. The Ace, Synthes, Smith & Nephew Richards, and Howmedica fixators were mechanically similar. The Zimmer Torus fixator was the least stiff fixator tested. Conclusions: Fixators with multiple levels of fixation in the periarticular fragment, regardless of design, were stiffer than those with one level. The choice of which hybrid external fixator to use should be made based not only on stiffness but also on ease of clinical application, patient comfort, customer support from the manufacturer, and cost. Clinical investigation of the efficacy of each of these devices is warranted.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)418-425
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma
Volume13
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1999
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Tibia
Biomechanical Phenomena
External Fixators
Biocompatible Materials
Costs and Cost Analysis
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Biomechanics
  • External fixation
  • Hybrid fixator
  • Pilon fracture
  • Tibial plateau fracture

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

Comparative biomechanics of hybrid external fixation. / Pugh, Kevin J.; Wolinsky, Philip R; Pienkowski, D.; Banit, D.; Dawson, J. M.

In: Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Vol. 13, No. 6, 08.1999, p. 418-425.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pugh, Kevin J. ; Wolinsky, Philip R ; Pienkowski, D. ; Banit, D. ; Dawson, J. M. / Comparative biomechanics of hybrid external fixation. In: Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma. 1999 ; Vol. 13, No. 6. pp. 418-425.
@article{6d688311e9bb4f458acec1670d08616c,
title = "Comparative biomechanics of hybrid external fixation",
abstract = "Objective: To compare the elastic stiffness, in several loading modes, of commercially available hybrid external fixation systems. Design: Laboratory investigation using a Polyvinylchloride pipe periarticular tibia fracture model. Setting: Simulated periarticular fractures were created in an in vitro tibia fracture model. Instrumented specimens and intact controls were elastically tested in a biomaterials testing system. Intervention: Groups of simulated periarticular tibia fractures were stabilized with one of six different hybrid external fixator designs. Main Outcome Measurements: Elastic stiffness of each specimen was measured in compression, torsion, flexion bending, extension bending, and varus/valgus bending. Results: Fixators with multiple levels of fixation in the periarticular fragment, regardless of design, were stiffer than those with one level. Specifically, the EBI Ring Connector fixator was stiffer than all others in all modes of testing. The Ace, Synthes, Smith & Nephew Richards, and Howmedica fixators were mechanically similar. The Zimmer Torus fixator was the least stiff fixator tested. Conclusions: Fixators with multiple levels of fixation in the periarticular fragment, regardless of design, were stiffer than those with one level. The choice of which hybrid external fixator to use should be made based not only on stiffness but also on ease of clinical application, patient comfort, customer support from the manufacturer, and cost. Clinical investigation of the efficacy of each of these devices is warranted.",
keywords = "Biomechanics, External fixation, Hybrid fixator, Pilon fracture, Tibial plateau fracture",
author = "Pugh, {Kevin J.} and Wolinsky, {Philip R} and D. Pienkowski and D. Banit and Dawson, {J. M.}",
year = "1999",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1097/00005131-199908000-00005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "418--425",
journal = "Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma",
issn = "0890-5339",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative biomechanics of hybrid external fixation

AU - Pugh, Kevin J.

AU - Wolinsky, Philip R

AU - Pienkowski, D.

AU - Banit, D.

AU - Dawson, J. M.

PY - 1999/8

Y1 - 1999/8

N2 - Objective: To compare the elastic stiffness, in several loading modes, of commercially available hybrid external fixation systems. Design: Laboratory investigation using a Polyvinylchloride pipe periarticular tibia fracture model. Setting: Simulated periarticular fractures were created in an in vitro tibia fracture model. Instrumented specimens and intact controls were elastically tested in a biomaterials testing system. Intervention: Groups of simulated periarticular tibia fractures were stabilized with one of six different hybrid external fixator designs. Main Outcome Measurements: Elastic stiffness of each specimen was measured in compression, torsion, flexion bending, extension bending, and varus/valgus bending. Results: Fixators with multiple levels of fixation in the periarticular fragment, regardless of design, were stiffer than those with one level. Specifically, the EBI Ring Connector fixator was stiffer than all others in all modes of testing. The Ace, Synthes, Smith & Nephew Richards, and Howmedica fixators were mechanically similar. The Zimmer Torus fixator was the least stiff fixator tested. Conclusions: Fixators with multiple levels of fixation in the periarticular fragment, regardless of design, were stiffer than those with one level. The choice of which hybrid external fixator to use should be made based not only on stiffness but also on ease of clinical application, patient comfort, customer support from the manufacturer, and cost. Clinical investigation of the efficacy of each of these devices is warranted.

AB - Objective: To compare the elastic stiffness, in several loading modes, of commercially available hybrid external fixation systems. Design: Laboratory investigation using a Polyvinylchloride pipe periarticular tibia fracture model. Setting: Simulated periarticular fractures were created in an in vitro tibia fracture model. Instrumented specimens and intact controls were elastically tested in a biomaterials testing system. Intervention: Groups of simulated periarticular tibia fractures were stabilized with one of six different hybrid external fixator designs. Main Outcome Measurements: Elastic stiffness of each specimen was measured in compression, torsion, flexion bending, extension bending, and varus/valgus bending. Results: Fixators with multiple levels of fixation in the periarticular fragment, regardless of design, were stiffer than those with one level. Specifically, the EBI Ring Connector fixator was stiffer than all others in all modes of testing. The Ace, Synthes, Smith & Nephew Richards, and Howmedica fixators were mechanically similar. The Zimmer Torus fixator was the least stiff fixator tested. Conclusions: Fixators with multiple levels of fixation in the periarticular fragment, regardless of design, were stiffer than those with one level. The choice of which hybrid external fixator to use should be made based not only on stiffness but also on ease of clinical application, patient comfort, customer support from the manufacturer, and cost. Clinical investigation of the efficacy of each of these devices is warranted.

KW - Biomechanics

KW - External fixation

KW - Hybrid fixator

KW - Pilon fracture

KW - Tibial plateau fracture

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033173586&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033173586&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00005131-199908000-00005

DO - 10.1097/00005131-199908000-00005

M3 - Article

C2 - 10459601

AN - SCOPUS:0033173586

VL - 13

SP - 418

EP - 425

JO - Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma

JF - Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma

SN - 0890-5339

IS - 6

ER -