Brinkman Justus-Martijn, Hurschler Christof, Agneskirchner Jens, Lobenhoffer Philip, Castelein René M, van Heerwaarden Ronald J
Department of Orthopaedics, Limb deformity reconstruction unit, Sint Maartensclinic, Woerden, The Netherlands.
Labor für Biomechanik und Biomaterialien, Orthopädische Klinik der Medizinischen Hochschule Hanover, Hanover, Germany.
J Exp Orthop. 2014 Dec;1(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s40634-014-0001-1. Epub 2014 Jun 26.
Implants for fracture and/or osteotomy fixation are often tested according to basic mechanical test models such as open gap tests or 4-point-bending tests. These may be suitable to test and compare different implants for safety and clinical approval, but are not always representative of the post-operative situation, which is decisive when it comes to bone healing. In the current study the Knee Expert Group of the Association for the Study of Internal Fixation has compared the available open gap test results of the latest version of the TomoFix Medial Distal Femoral Plate and the antecedent plate design, with the test results of a more physiological and life-like test model. In the open gap test model the antecedent plate design was found to have superior stiffness and fatigue strength.
In the current study simulated postoperative conditions for medial closing wedge supracondylar osteotomies were used. The constructs were subjected to cyclical axial and torsional loading and were subsequently tested to failure.
The more life-like tests in this study showed that the latest version was either more or equally stable and stiff than the antecedent version of the plate, in all of the tests. It is argued that the difference in results between the two loading models is due to differences in test design.
These test results stress the importance of not only using standard open gap and 4-point-bending tests, but also to use as life-like as possible test conditions for any form of biomechanical testing of new implants.
用于骨折和/或截骨固定的植入物通常根据基本力学测试模型进行测试,如开口间隙测试或四点弯曲测试。这些测试可能适合于测试和比较不同植入物的安全性及获得临床批准,但并不总是能代表术后情况,而术后情况对于骨愈合至关重要。在本研究中,内固定研究协会的膝关节专家组将最新版TomoFix股骨远端内侧钢板及其先前版本的现有开口间隙测试结果,与一个更符合生理和更逼真的测试模型的测试结果进行了比较。在开口间隙测试模型中,先前的钢板设计被发现具有更高的刚度和疲劳强度。
在本研究中,使用了模拟内侧闭合楔形髁上截骨术后的条件。构建物承受周期性轴向和扭转载荷,随后进行破坏测试。
本研究中更逼真的测试表明,在所有测试中,最新版本的钢板比先前版本的钢板更稳定或同样稳定且刚度相同。有人认为,两种加载模型结果的差异是由于测试设计的不同。
这些测试结果强调了不仅要使用标准的开口间隙和四点弯曲测试,而且对于新植入物的任何形式的生物力学测试,都要尽可能使用逼真的测试条件的重要性。