Bioengineering Research Lab, Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph’s Health Care, 268 Grosvenor Street, London, Ontario, Canada.
J Orthop Trauma. 2011 Jan;25(1):39-43. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181d8893a.
This biomechanical study compares four different techniques of fixation of middle third clavicular fractures.
Twenty fresh-frozen clavicles were randomized into four groups. Each group used a different fixation device (3.5 Synthes reconstruction plate, 3.5 Synthes limited contact dynamic compression plate, 3.5 Synthes locking compression plate, and 4.5 DePuy Rockwood clavicular pin). All constructs were mechanically tested in bending and torque modes both with and without a simulated inferior cortical defect. Bending load to failure was also conducted. The four groups were compared using an analysis of variance test.
The plate constructs were stiffer than the pin during both pure bending and torque loads with or without an inferior cortical defect. Bending load to failure with an inferior cortical defect revealed that the reconstruction plate was weaker compared with the other three groups. The limited contact and locking plates were stiffer than the reconstruction plate but demonstrated statistical significance only with the cortical defect.
As hypothesized, the 3.5 limited contact dynamic compression plate and 3.5 locking compression plate demonstrated the greatest resistance to bending and torque loads, especially in the presence of simulated comminution of a middle third clavicular fracture. The reconstruction plate demonstrated lower stiffness and strength values compared with the other plates, especially with a cortical defect, whereas the pin showed poor resistance to bending and torque loads in all modes of testing. This information may help surgeons to choose the most appropriate method of fixation when treating fractures of the middle third of the clavicle.
本生物力学研究比较了固定锁骨中段骨折的四种不同技术。
20 个新鲜冷冻锁骨随机分为四组。每组使用不同的固定装置(3.5 Synthes 重建板、3.5 Synthes 有限接触动力加压板、3.5 Synthes 锁定加压板和 4.5 DePuy Rockwood 锁骨钉)。所有构建物均在弯曲和扭矩模式下进行机械测试,同时模拟了下皮质缺损。还进行了弯曲破坏载荷测试。使用方差分析检验比较了这四组。
在有无下皮质缺损的情况下,无论是在纯弯曲还是扭矩载荷下,板状结构都比针状结构更坚固。在存在下皮质缺损的情况下,弯曲破坏载荷显示重建板与其他三组相比强度较弱。有限接触和锁定板比重建板更坚固,但仅在下皮质缺损时具有统计学意义。
正如假设的那样,3.5 有限接触动力加压板和 3.5 锁定加压板在弯曲和扭矩载荷下表现出最大的抵抗力,特别是在模拟粉碎性锁骨中段骨折的情况下。重建板与其他板相比表现出较低的刚度和强度值,尤其是在下皮质缺损的情况下,而针在所有测试模式下均表现出对弯曲和扭矩载荷的抵抗力差。这些信息可能有助于外科医生在治疗锁骨中段骨折时选择最合适的固定方法。