In vitro biomechanical comparison of solid and tubular interlocking nails in neonatal bovine femurs.

This study biomechanically evaluates solid and tubular interlocking nails in bovine neonatal femurs. Paired femurs from 40 neonatal dairy calves were obtained for mechanical testing. Intact femurs and four combinations of experimentally manipulated femurs (intact or ostectomized femurs with either a solid or tubular interlocking nail) were tested in craniocaudal and lateromedial bending, eccentric axial compression, and external torsion to evaluate composite rigidity, local/gap stiffness, and load to failure (compression and torsion only). In torsional composite rigidity, femurs with tubular interlocking nails were more complaint than intact femurs or intact femurs with solid interlocking nails (P < .001). Ostectomized femurs with solid interlocking nails were similar to intact femurs with tubular interlocking nails. Within femurs with tubular interlocking nails, ostectomized femurs were more compliant than intact femurs (P < .0001). In craniocaudal and lateromedial bending rigidity, ostectomized femurs were more complaint than intact femurs, regardless of interlocking nail type (P < .001). Within ostectomized femurs, tubular interlocking nails were more complaint than solid interlocking nails in craniocaudal bending (P < .05) and there was a similar trend in lateromedial bending (P = .06). In eccentric axial compression, local/gap stiffness was significantly greater in intact femurs compared with intact femurs with solid (48% of intact bone) or tubular (45% of intact bone) interlocking nails and ostectomized femurs with solid (18% of intact bone) or tubular (11% of intact bone) interlocking nails (P < .0001). In torsional testing, local/gap stiffness was not significantly different between intact femurs and intact femurs with interlocking nails, but was significantly lower in ostectomized femurs with solid (2% of intact bone) and tubular (0.2% of intact bone) interlocking nails (P < .0001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)