Biomechanical investigation of an alternative concept to angular stable plating using conventional fixation hardware

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Volumn 11, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Windolf, Markus ^a   Klos, Kajetan ^a   Wähnert, Dirk ^a   Van Der Pol, Bas ^a   Radtke, Roman ^a   Schwieger, Karsten ^a   Jakob, Roland P ^b  

^a AO RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Switzerland)

^b Kantonsspital Freiburg ^*  (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; BONE PLATE; BONE SCREW; CADAVER; FEMALE; FEMUR; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMPLANT; MALE; OSTEOSYNTHESIS; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; DIAPHYSIS; EQUIPMENT; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FRACTURE; FRACTURE FIXATION; HISTOLOGY; INSTRUMENTATION; MECHANICAL STRESS; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSIOLOGY; STANDARD; WEIGHT BEARING;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOMECHANICS; BONE PLATES; BONE SCREWS; CADAVER; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; DIAPHYSES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FEMUR; FRACTURE FIXATION; FRACTURES, BONE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; STRESS, MECHANICAL; WEIGHT-BEARING;

EID: 77952439434     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712474     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-11-95     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Backgrounds of the technology of internal fixators. SM Perren, Injury 2003 34 Suppl 2 1 B3 10.1016/j.injury.2003.09.018 14580979
2. Biomechanics of locked plates and screws. KA Egol EN Kubiak E Fulkerson FJ Kummer KJ Koval, J Orthop Trauma 2004 18 488 493 10.1097/00005131-200409000- 00003 15475843
3. General principles for the clinical use of the LCP. M Wagner, Injury 2003 34 Suppl 2 31 B42 10.1016/j.injury.2003.09.023 14580984
4. Relative stability of conventional and locked plating fixation in a model of the osteoporotic femoral diaphysis. DC Fitzpatrick J Doornink SM Madey M Bottlang, Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2009 24 203 209 10.1016/j.clinbiomech. 2008.11.002 19070409
5. Fixation of diaphyseal fractures with a segmental defect: a biomechanical comparison of locked and conventional plating techniques. E Fulkerson KA Egol EN Kubiak F Liporace FJ Kummer KJ Koval, J Trauma 2006 60 830 835 10.1097/01.ta.0000195462.53525.0c 16612304
6. A review of locking compression plate biomechanics and their advantages as internal fixators in fracture healing. DL Miller T Goswami, Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2007 22 1049 1062 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.08.004 17904257
7. Locked plating in orthopaedic trauma: a clinical update. GJ Haidukewych W Ricci, J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2008 16 347 355 18524986
8. Surface properties of Indonesian-made narrow dynamic compression plates. P Dewo PK Sharma HF van der Tas EB van der Houwen M Timmer R Magetsari HJ Busscher JR van Horn GJ Verkerke, Med J Malaysia 2008 63 Suppl A 21 22 19024964
9. Less invasive percutaneous wave plating of simple femur shaft fractures: A prospective series. AJ Angelini B Livani MA Flierl SJ Morgan WD Belangero, Injury 2010 20170914
10. Biomechanical testing of the locking compression plate: when does the distance between bone and implant significantly reduce construct stability? M Ahmad R Nanda AS Bajwa J Candal-Couto S Green AC Hui, Injury 2007 38 358 364 10.1016/j.injury.2006.08.058 17296199
11. Mechanical testing of 3.5 mm locking and non-locking bone plates. M DeTora K Kraus, Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008 21 318 322 18704237
12. Hybrid locked plating of osteoporotic fractures of the humerus. MJ Gardner MH Griffith D Demetrakopoulos RH Brophy A Grose DL Helfet DG Lorich, J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006 88 1962 1967 10.2106/JBJS.E.00893 16951112
13. Are locking screws advantageous with plate fixation of humeral shaft fractures? A biomechanical analysis of synthetic and cadaveric bone. RV O'Toole RC Andersen O Vesnovsky M Alexander LD Topoleski JW Nascone MF Sciadini C Turen WA Eglseder Jr, J Orthop Trauma 2008 22 709 715 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31818df8cb 18978547
14. Mechanical comparison of 3.5 mm broad dynamic compression plate, broad limited-contact dynamic compression plate, and narrow locking compression plate systems using interfragmentary gap models. JM Uhl B Seguin AS Kapatkin KS Schulz TC Garcia SM Stover, Vet Surg 2008 37 663 673 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2008.00433.x 19134089
15. Proximal humeral fractures: how stiff should an implant be? A comparative mechanical study with new implants in human specimens. H Lill P Hepp J Korner JP Kassi AP Verheyden C Josten GN Duda, Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2003 123 74 81 12721684