Jaskulka R A, Egkher E, Wielke B
Medical Center East, Department for Trauma Surgery, Vienna, Austria.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1994;113(5):271-5. doi: 10.1007/BF00443816.
Due to the increasing popularity of unilateral dynamizable external fixators for treating tibial shaft fractures, many new devices are being introduced onto the market. Especially in such half-frame fixators, the choice of any particular device depends above all on the stability of its construction. This study compares the biomechanical stability of three systems tested in axial compression, torsion, and both anterior-posterior and medial-lateral bending. In terms of the nondynamized phase, the AO/ASIF tubular fixator (as a one-plane, double-tube, unilateral frame) and the Martin Mono-Dynafix are, in general, less stable than the Orthofix fixator. After dynamization, the AO/ASIF system becomes particularly weak and offers low resistance especially to torque and any force that is perpendicular to the plane of assembly. The other two tested devices evinced much more stability; the Orthofix fixator seems superior to the Dynafix due to the different diameter of its screws.
由于单侧可动力化外固定器在治疗胫骨干骨折方面越来越受欢迎，许多新设备正在推向市场。特别是在这种半框架固定器中，任何特定设备的选择首先取决于其结构的稳定性。本研究比较了三种系统在轴向压缩、扭转以及前后和内外侧弯曲测试中的生物力学稳定性。在非动力化阶段，AO/ASIF管状固定器（作为单面、双管、单侧框架）和Martin Mono-Dynafix通常不如Orthofix固定器稳定。动力化后，AO/ASIF系统变得特别脆弱，尤其是对扭矩和任何垂直于组装平面的力的抵抗力较低。另外两个测试设备表现出更高的稳定性；由于其螺钉直径不同，Orthofix固定器似乎优于Dynafix。
