• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

豪梅迪卡(Howmedica)和辛迪斯(Synthes)军用外固定架的比较。

Comparison of the Howmedica and Synthes military external fixation frames.

作者信息

Bosse M J, Holmes C, Vossoughi J, Alter D

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.

出版信息

J Orthop Trauma. 1994;8(2):119-26. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199404000-00008.

DOI:10.1097/00005131-199404000-00008
PMID:8207568
Abstract

To direct the U.S. military purchase of deployable external fixation gear, a project was designed to compare the biomechanical properties and ease of clinical application of military external fixators developed by Synthes and Howmedica. The project assessed (a) ease of application, (b) biomechanics, (c) heat stability, and (d) product line compatibility. Pretrained general surgery residents were provided with fresh cadaver limbs with simulated grade IIIB tibial fractures and 5-cm middiaphyseal defects. All chose the Howmedica Ultra-X for its ease of application but, on manual testing, noted that the Synthes Trauma-Fix was more stable. The frames were biomechanically tested in a previously validated model with strictly controlled parameters. The Howmedica Ultra-X demonstrated only 75% of the compressive stiffness, 29% of the anteroposterior bending stiffness, and 51% of the torsional stiffness of the Synthes Trauma-Fix. The Ultra-X failed to withstand steam sterilization and was significantly weaker than, and incompatible with, Howmedica's commercially available product. The Trauma-Fix demonstrated no statistically significant difference from Synthes' commercially available product. The Howmedica Ultra-X is unsuitable for military external fixation: The biomechanical properties are not equivalent to those of the unilateral Hoffmann frame, it is incompatible with commercially available Howmedica external fixators, and it fails to withstand heat sterilization.

摘要

为指导美国军方采购可部署的外固定装置,设计了一个项目,以比较辛迪思公司(Synthes)和豪美医疗器械公司(Howmedica)研发的军事外固定器的生物力学性能和临床应用便利性。该项目评估了:(a)应用便利性;(b)生物力学性能;(c)热稳定性;(d)产品线兼容性。为经过预培训的普通外科住院医师提供带有模拟ⅢB级胫骨骨折和5厘米骨干中段缺损的新鲜尸体肢体。所有人都因应用便利而选择了豪美医疗器械公司的Ultra-X,但在手动测试中发现,辛迪思公司的创伤固定器(Trauma-Fix)更稳定。在一个参数严格受控的先前经验证的模型中对这些框架进行了生物力学测试。豪美医疗器械公司的Ultra-X的抗压刚度仅为辛迪思公司创伤固定器的75%,前后弯曲刚度为29%,扭转刚度为51%。Ultra-X无法承受蒸汽灭菌,且明显比豪美医疗器械公司的市售产品更脆弱,且与之不兼容。创伤固定器与辛迪思公司的市售产品相比,没有统计学上的显著差异。豪美医疗器械公司的Ultra-X不适合用于军事外固定:其生物力学性能与单侧霍夫曼架不等同,与豪美医疗器械公司的市售外固定器不兼容,且无法承受热灭菌。

相似文献

1
Comparison of the Howmedica and Synthes military external fixation frames.豪梅迪卡(Howmedica)和辛迪斯(Synthes)军用外固定架的比较。
J Orthop Trauma. 1994;8(2):119-26. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199404000-00008.
2
External fixation in the treatment of tibial pilon fractures: comparison of two frames in torsion.外固定治疗胫骨Pilon骨折:两种框架在扭转方面的比较。
Foot Ankle Int. 2007 Jul;28(7):823-30. doi: 10.3113/FAI.2007.0823.
3
A biomechanical strength comparison of external fixators.
J Trauma. 1998 Jun;44(6):965-9. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199806000-00006.
4
Hybrid external fixation of proximal tibia fractures: biomechanical analysis of four commercial systems.胫骨近端骨折的混合外固定:四种商用系统的生物力学分析
Orthopedics. 2007 Dec;30(12):1033-8. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20071201-06.
5
Biomechanical comparison of hybrid external fixators.混合式外固定器的生物力学比较
J Orthop Trauma. 1998 Sep-Oct;12(7):496-503. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199809000-00013.
6
The accuracy of fine wire tensioners: a comparison of five tensioners used in hybrid and ring external fixation.细钢丝张力器的准确性:用于混合式和环形外固定的五种张力器的比较
J Orthop Trauma. 2004 Mar;18(3):158-62. doi: 10.1097/00005131-200403000-00006.
7
External fixation design evolution enhances biomechanical frame performance.外固定设计的演变提高了生物力学框架性能。
Injury. 2015 Sep;46 Suppl 3:S23-6. doi: 10.1016/S0020-1383(15)30007-3.
8
Comparative biomechanics of hybrid external fixation.混合外固定的比较生物力学
J Orthop Trauma. 1999 Aug;13(6):418-25. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199908000-00005.
9
Evaluation of a novel, nonspanning external fixator for treatment of unstable extra-articular fractures of the distal radius: biomechanical comparison with a volar locking plate.一种新型非跨越外固定器治疗桡骨远端不稳定关节外骨折的评估:与掌侧锁定钢板的生物力学比较
J Trauma. 2008 Apr;64(4):975-81. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3180eea9f0.
10
A comparative study of mini-external fixation systems used to treat unstable metacarpal fractures.
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2004 Sep;33(9):433-8.

引用本文的文献

1
Peripheral extremity surgery performed during the Syrian conflict - A scoping review.叙利亚冲突期间进行的外周肢体手术——一项范围综述。
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2025 Feb 10;5(2):e0004116. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0004116. eCollection 2025.
2
Temporary and definitive external fixation of war injuries: use of a French dedicated fixator.战伤的临时与确定性外固定:法国专用固定器的应用
Int Orthop. 2014 Aug;38(8):1569-76. doi: 10.1007/s00264-014-2305-2. Epub 2014 Mar 11.