Premium
An in Vitro Biomechanical Comparison of Two Interlocking‐Nail Systems for Fixation of Ostectomized Equine Third Metacarpal Bones
Author(s) -
Lopez Mandi J.,
Wilson David G.,
Trostle Steven S.,
Markel Mark D.
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
veterinary surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.652
H-Index - 79
eISSN - 1532-950X
pISSN - 0161-3499
DOI - 10.1053/jvet.2001.23346
Subject(s) - ostectomy , interlocking , medicine , metacarpal bones , torsion (gastropod) , orthodontics , fixation (population genetics) , intramedullary rod , biomechanics , stiffness , anatomy , dentistry , composite material , structural engineering , population , materials science , environmental health , engineering
Objective— To compare the mechanical properties of 2 interlocking‐nail systems for fixation of ostectomized equine third metacarpi (MC3): (1) a standard interlocking nail with 2 parallel screws proximal and distal to a 1‐cm ostectomy; and (2) a modified interlocking nail with 2 screws proximal and distal to a 1‐cm ostectomy with the screws offset by 30°. Animal or Sample Population— Twelve pairs of adult equine forelimbs intact from the midradius distally. Methods— Twelve pairs of equine MC3 were divided into 2 test groups (6 pairs each): torsion and caudocranial 4‐point bending. Standard interlocking nails (6‐hole, 13‐mm diameter, 230‐mm length) were placed in 1 randomly selected bone from each pair. Modified interlocking nails (6‐hole, 13‐mm, 230‐mm length, screw holes offset by 30°) were placed in the contralateral bone from each pair. All bones had 1‐cm mid‐diaphyseal ostectomies. Six construct pairs were tested in caudocranial 4‐point bending to determine stiffness and failure properties. The remaining 6 construct pairs were tested in torsion to determine torsional stiffness and yield load. Mean values for each fixation method were compared using a paired t test within each group. Significance was set at P < .05 . Results— Mean (±SEM) values for the MC3‐standard interlocking‐nail composite and the MC3‐modified interlocking‐nail composite, respectively, in 4‐point bending were: composite rigidity, 3,119 ± 334.5 Nm/rad (newton · meter/radian) and 3,185 ± 401.2 Nm/rad; yield bending moment, 205.0 ± 18.46 Nm and 186.7 ± 6.17 Nm; and failure bending moment, 366.4 ± 21.82 Nm and 378.1 ± 20.41 Nm. There were no significant differences in the biomechanical values for bending between the 2 fixation methods. In torsion, mean (±SEM) values for the MC3‐standard interlocking‐nail composite and the MC3‐modified interlocking‐nail composite were: composite rigidity, 135.5 ± 7.128 Nm/rad and 112.5 ± 7.432 Nm/rad; gap stiffness, 207.6 ± 10.57 Nm/rad and 181.7 ± 12.89 Nm/rad; and yield load, 123.3 ± 2.563 Nm and 107.5 ± 8.353 Nm, respectively. Composite rigidity and gap stiffness for standard interlocking‐nail fixations were significantly higher than the modified interlocking‐nail fixation technique in torsion. Yield load had a tendency to be higher for the standard interlocking‐nail fixation ( P = .15 ). Conclusions— No significant differences in biomechanical properties were identified between a standard interlocking nail and one with the screw holes offset by 30° in caudocranial 4‐point bending. The standard interlocking nail was superior to the modified interlocking nail in torsional gap stiffness and composite rigidity. The torsional yield load also tended to be higher for the standard interlocking nail. Clinical Relevance— The standard interlocking nail with parallel screw holes is superior to a modified interlocking nail with the screw holes offset by 30° in ostectomized equine MC3 bones in vitro when tested in torsion.