van der Zee J
Johannes van der Zee, BVSc MMedVet(Surgery Small Animals), PO Box 38600, Faerie Glen, 0043, South Africa, Phone: +27 12 9913573 / +27 82 8225891, Fax: +27 12 991 4922, E-mail:
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2014;27(2):91-6. doi: 10.3415/VCOT-13-01-0002. Epub 2013 Dec 9.
To compare the in vitro biomechanical effects of single loop cerclage wires, an intramedullary pin and the combination thereof as applied to an oblique mid-diaphyseal osteotomy of canine tibiae.
Three groups of nine bones with long oblique osteotomies were repaired with the following methods: 1) Three single loop cerclage wires and a transcortical skewer pin, 2) intramedullary pinning with a smooth Steinmann pin, and 3) a combination of both methods. The repaired constructs were tested in a single cycle four-point-bending test to failure. Load displacement curves were drawn and the following parameters were calculated or extrapolated: Stiffness, load at yield, and force resisted at 2 mm actuator displacement. The latter was determined to demonstrate the difference in the amount of energy absorbed between the different groups.
The stiffness and force resisted at 2 mm displacement of the groups with cerclage wires were significantly higher than the group with an intramedullary pin alone (p ≤0.05). The differences in stiffness (p = 0.15) and force required at 2 mm displacement (p = 0.56) between cerclage wires and the combination of cerclage wires and intramedullary pins were not significant.
Cerclage wire repair results in higher stiffness than repair with an intramedullary pin. When cerclage wires are combined with an intramedullary pin, the intramedullary pin does not provide protection to the cerclage wire repair and the wires or the bone under the wires has to fail before the pin resists significant load.
比较单环扎丝、髓内针及其联合应用于犬胫骨中段斜形截骨时的体外生物力学效应。
将三组各九根行长斜形截骨的骨头用以下方法修复：1）三根单环扎丝和一根经皮质串针；2）用光滑的斯氏针进行髓内针固定；3）两种方法联合应用。对修复后的结构进行单周期四点弯曲试验直至破坏。绘制载荷-位移曲线，并计算或外推以下参数：刚度、屈服载荷以及在致动器位移2 mm时的抗力。确定后者以证明不同组之间吸收能量量的差异。
使用扎丝的组在2 mm位移时的刚度和抗力显著高于仅使用髓内针的组（p≤0.05）。扎丝组与扎丝和髓内针联合应用组在刚度（p = 0.15）和2 mm位移时所需力（p = 0.56）方面的差异不显著。
扎丝修复比髓内针修复具有更高的刚度。当扎丝与髓内针联合使用时，髓内针不能为扎丝修复提供保护，并且在髓内针抵抗显著载荷之前，扎丝或扎丝下方的骨头必须先失效。
