Biomechanical Comparison of 4.0-mm Short-Threaded Cannulated Screws and 4.0-mm Short-Threaded Cancellous Screws in a Canine Humeral Condylar Fracture Model

被引:9
作者
Rochereau, Philippe [1 ]
Diop, Amadou [2 ]
Maurel, Nathalie [2 ]
Bernarde, Antoine [1 ]
机构
[1] Ctr Hosp & Vet St Martin Bellevue, St Martin Bellevue, France
[2] Equipe Biomecan & Remodelage Osseux, Ecole Natl Super Arts & Metiers, Paris, France
关键词
CAPITAL PHYSEAL FRACTURES; INTERLOCKING NAIL; BONE SCREWS; CARPAL BONE; DOGS; FIXATION; STANDARD; REPAIR; PLATE;
D O I
10.1111/j.1532-950X.2012.01014.x
中图分类号
S85 [动物医学(兽医学)];
学科分类号
0906 ;
摘要
Objective To compare biomechanical properties of a humeral condylar fracture model stabilized either with a 4.0-mm short-threaded cancellous screw (CCS) or with a 4.0-mm short-threaded cannulated screw (CNS). Study design In vitro biomechanical study. Sample Population Bilateral cadaveric canine humeri (n = 20). Methods Fractures of the lateral portion of the humeral condyle were simulated by standardized osteotomies; 10 condyles were each stabilized with CCS and 10 with CNS. Axial compression load was applied to each specimen until failure and force-displacement curves generated. Testing data for each construct were determined and compared using either a Student's paired t-test (quantitative data) or a ?2 test (qualitative data) with statistical significance set at P < .05. Results Yield load (elastic limit), ultimate load at failure, and displacements at loads corresponding to walk and trot were determined from each curve. Mean +/- SD ultimate load at failure was significantly higher (P = .01) for CCS constructs (1261 +/- 261 N) than for CNS constructs (1078 +/- 231 N). Yield loads were not significantly different (P = .10) between construct types, and exceeded all expected loads supported by the humeral condyle at walk. The risk of having a yield load below the expected physiologic load at trot was not statistically higher with a CNS construct compared with a CCS construct (P = .26). Conclusion Humeral condylar fracture repaired either by a 4.0-mm cannulated screw or a 4.0-mm cancellous screw have comparable stability in this condylar fracture model.
引用
收藏
页码:712 / 719
页数:8
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]   FRACTURES OF THE HUMERUS IN DOGS AND CATS - A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF 130 CASES [J].
BARDET, JF ;
HOHN, RB ;
RUDY, RL ;
OLMSTEAD, ML .
VETERINARY SURGERY, 1983, 12 (02) :73-77
[2]   Repair of femoral capital physeal fractures with 7.0-mm cannulated screws in cattle: 20 cases (1988-2002) [J].
Bentley, VA ;
Edwards, RB ;
Santschi, EM ;
Livesey, MA .
JAVMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2005, 227 (06) :964-969
[3]  
Bernardé A, 2002, VET COMP ORTHOPAED, V15, P57
[4]   An in vitro biomechanical study of bone plate and interlocking nail in a canine diaphyseal femoral fracture model [J].
Bernarde, A ;
Diop, A ;
Maurel, N ;
Viguier, E .
VETERINARY SURGERY, 2001, 30 (05) :397-408
[5]   Mechanical performance of standard and cannulated 4.0-mm cancellous bone screws [J].
Brown, GA ;
McCarthy, T ;
Bourgeault, CA ;
Callahan, DJ .
JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH, 2000, 18 (02) :307-312
[6]   A comparison of the synthes 4.5-mm cannulated screw and the synthes 4.5-mm standard cortex screw systems in equine bone [J].
Colgan, SA ;
Hecker, AT ;
Kirker-Head, CA ;
Hayes, WC .
VETERINARY SURGERY, 1998, 27 (06) :540-546
[7]   Arthroscopic biceps tenodesis: Technique and results in six dogs [J].
Cook, James L. ;
Kenter, Keith ;
Fox, Derek B. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ANIMAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, 2005, 41 (02) :121-127
[8]   Fluoroscopically guided closed reduction and internal fixation of fractures of the lateral portion of the humeral condyle: Prospective clinical study of the technique and results in ten dogs [J].
Cook, JL ;
Tomlinson, JL ;
Reed, AL .
VETERINARY SURGERY, 1999, 28 (05) :315-321
[9]  
Denny JR, 1983, J SMALL ANIM PRACTIC, V24, P185
[10]   Treatment of Incomplete Ossification of the Humeral Condyle with Autogenous Bone Grafting Techniques [J].
Fitzpatrick, Noel ;
Smith, Thomas J. ;
O'Riordan, Jerry ;
Yeadon, Russell .
VETERINARY SURGERY, 2009, 38 (02) :173-184