In Vitro Biomechanical Comparison of Locking Compression Plate Fixation and Limited-Contact Dynamic Compression Plate Fixation of Osteotomized Equine Third Metacarpal Bones

2008 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 283-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
GARY A. SOD ◽  
COLIN F. MITCHELL ◽  
JEREMY D. HUBERT ◽  
GEORGE S. MARTIN ◽  
MARJORIE S. GILL
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Compression ◽  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Locking Compression Plate ◽  
Dynamic Compression Plate ◽  
Metacarpal Bones ◽  
Compression Plate ◽  
Biomechanical Comparison

In vitro biomechanical comparison of limited contact dynamic compression plate and locking compression plate

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (04) ◽  
pp. 220-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. M. Manos ◽  
A. S. Orlansky ◽  
R. J. Todhunter ◽  
E. J. Trotter ◽  
M. C. H. van der Meulen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Compression ◽  
Twist Angle ◽  
Biomechanical Testing ◽  
Good Alternative ◽  
Locking Compression Plate ◽  
Fracture Repair ◽  
Dynamic Compression Plate ◽  
Compression Plate ◽  
Biomechanical Comparison

SummaryThe locking compression plate (LCP) supports biological osteosynthesis by functioning as an internal fixator, rather than as a full or limited contact bone plate which must be adequately contoured and affixed directly to the bone for stable internal fixation of the fracture. In order to help justify the use of the LCP in our veterinary patients, in vitro biomechanical testing was performed comparing the LCP to the conventional limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) in canine femurs. We hypothesized that the LCP construct would be at least as stiff under bending and torsional loads as the LC-DCP. The LCP and LC-DCP were applied over a 20-mm osteotomy gap to contralateral bones within each pair of 14 femora. Non-destructive four-point bending and torsion, and cyclical testing in torsion were performed. The constructs were then loaded to failure in torsion. In medial-lateral and lateral-medial structural bending, significant differences were not found between the LCP and LC-DCP, however, at the gap, the LCP construct was stiffer than the LC-DCP in lateral-medial bending. Significant differences in behaviour over time were not noted between the plate designs during cyclical testing. When loading the constructs to failure in internal rotation, the LC-DCP failed at a significantly lower twist angle (P = .0024) than the LCP. Based on the similar performance with loading, the locking compression plate is a good alternative implant for unstable diaphyseal femoral fracture repair in dogs.

scholarly journals A biomechanical comparison of 3.5 locking compression plate fixation to 3.5 limited contact dynamic compression plate fixation in a canine cadaveric distal humeral metaphyseal gap model

2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (04) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. Lanz ◽  
R. McLaughlin ◽  
S. Elder ◽  
S. Werre ◽  
D. Filipowicz
Keyword(s):  
Axial Compression ◽  
Dynamic Testing ◽  
Dynamic Compression ◽  
Plate Fixation ◽  
Locking Compression Plate ◽  
Locking Plates ◽  
Gap Model ◽  
Static Compression ◽  
Dynamic Compression Plate ◽  
Compression Plate

Summary3.5 locking compression plate (LCP) fixation was compared to 3.5 limited contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) fixation in a canine cadaveric, distal humeral metaphyseal gap model. Thirty paired humeri from adult, large breed dogs were separated into equal groups based on testing: static compression, cyclic compression, and cyclic torsion. Humeral constructs stabilized with LCP were significantly stiffer than those plated with LCDCP when loaded in static axial compression (P = 0.0004). When cyclically loaded in axial compression, the LCP constructs were significantly less stiff than the LC-DCP constructs (P = 0.0029). Constructs plated with LCP were significantly less resistant to torsion over 500 cycles than those plated with LC-DCP (P<0.0001). The increased stiffness of LCP constructs in monotonic loading compared to constructs stabilised with non-locking plates may be attributed to the stability afforded by the plate-screw interface of locking plates. The LCP constructs demonstrated less stiffness in dynamic testing in this model, likely due to plate-bone offset secondary to non-anatomic contouring and occasional incomplete seating of the locking screws when using the torque-limiting screw driver. Resolution of these aspects of LCP application may help improve the stiffness of fixation in fractures modeled by the experimental set-up of this investigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document