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 language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 418-425 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Aug 1999 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Article
}
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 -