Strauss Eric J, Banerjee Devraj, Kummer Frederick J, Tejwani Nirmal C
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, New York, USA.
J Trauma. 2008 Apr;64(4):975-81. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3180eea9f0.
To compare the stability of a novel, nonspanning external fixator with a standard volar locked plate for treatment of unstable distal radius fractures.
A simulated, unstable, extra- articular distal radius fracture was created in six matched pairs of fresh frozen human distal radii. One of each pair was treated with a nonspanning external fixator [Mirza Cross Pin Fixator (CPX), A.M. Surgical Inc. Smithtown, NY] and the other was treated with a volar locked plate [Distal Volar Radial Plate (DVR), Hand Innovations, Miami, FL]. Each specimen was axially loaded in central, dorsal, and volar locations, loaded in cantilever bending in volar to dorsal, dorsal to volar, and radial to ulnar directions and loaded in torsion. Load-displacement curves were generated to determine the construct stiffness for each loading schema, with comparisons made between the two treatment groups. Specimens were then cyclically loaded with 50 N axial loads applied for 1,000 and 10,000 cycles. Measurement of construct stiffness was repeated and comparisons made both between the two treatments and within treatments to their precycling stiffness.
There was no significant difference in the mechanical stiffness of the nonspanning external fixator and the volar locking plate after axial loading in any of the loading modalities. Cyclic loads of 1,000 and 10,000 cycles resulted in no significant difference in construct stiffness between the nonspanning external fixator and volar locked plate. However, the nonspanning external fixator demonstrated decreasing stiffness after cyclic loading with 10,000 cycles (p < 0.02).
This study demonstrated no significant difference in the mechanical stiffness of the CPX nonspanning external fixator and volar locked plate in a cadaveric fracture model. Both constructs appear to be biomechanically equivalent in this experimental model; however, this is only one factor in the choice of fixation device for the management of unstable distal radius fractures.
比较一种新型非跨关节外固定器与标准掌侧锁定钢板治疗不稳定桡骨远端骨折的稳定性。
在六对匹配的新鲜冷冻人桡骨远端制造模拟的不稳定关节外桡骨远端骨折。每对中的一个用非跨关节外固定器[米尔扎交叉针固定器(CPX),A.M.外科公司,纽约州史密斯镇]治疗,另一个用掌侧锁定钢板[桡骨远端掌侧钢板(DVR),手部创新公司,佛罗里达州迈阿密]治疗。每个标本在中央、背侧和掌侧位置进行轴向加载,在掌侧到背侧、背侧到掌侧以及桡侧到尺侧方向进行悬臂弯曲加载,并进行扭转加载。生成载荷-位移曲线以确定每种加载模式下固定结构的刚度,并在两个治疗组之间进行比较。然后对标本施加50 N轴向载荷进行1000次和10000次循环的循环加载。重复测量固定结构的刚度,并在两种治疗之间以及治疗内与预循环刚度进行比较。
在任何加载方式下轴向加载后,非跨关节外固定器和掌侧锁定钢板的机械刚度没有显著差异。1000次和10000次循环的循环载荷导致非跨关节外固定器和掌侧锁定钢板之间的固定结构刚度没有显著差异。然而,非跨关节外固定器在10000次循环的循环加载后刚度降低(p < 0.02)。
本研究表明,在尸体骨折模型中,CPX非跨关节外固定器和掌侧锁定钢板的机械刚度没有显著差异。在该实验模型中,两种固定结构在生物力学上似乎是等效的;然而,这只是选择用于治疗不稳定桡骨远端骨折的固定装置时的一个因素。