Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Research

A PRELIMINARY PERSISTENT COMPRESSION DYNAMIC PLATE FOR TREATMENT OF LONG BONE FRACTURES: AN IN VITRO BIOMECHANICAL STUDY

European Orthopaedic Research Society (EORS) 2015, Annual Conference, 2–4 September 2015. Part 1.



Abstract

Background

Bothlimited-contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) and locking compression plate (LCP) systems were designed to provide enhanced bone healing and to improve stability at fracture site. However, implant failure, delayed union, nonunion and instability are still frequently encountered complications. The purpose of this study was to determine the biomechanical characteristics of a novel persistent compression dynamic plate (PCDP) which provides a persistent compression to fracture edges, and to compare the biomechanical properties of such a novel plate with the commonly used LCP.

Methods

The novel persistent compression dynamic plate (PCDP) system is composed of a body, an inner compression spring and a distal mobile component. The body (proximal part) contains an adjustable screw and the distal part of the dynamic system can slide inside the body through a special tube. 12 (saw bone) artificial femoral bones were used. Transverse distal shaft fracture was created in all the saw bones at the same level, 6 femurs were fixed using the novel PCDP, whereas the other 6 femurs were fixed using the well-known LCP. All samples had undergone a nondestructive repetitive different forces (axial compression, bending and torsion), to evaluate the biomechanical differences between the two plating systems.

Results

Under axial load the mean stiffness value was 439,0 N/mm for the PCDP and 158,9 N/mm for the LCP. There was nosignificant difference in A-P (anteroposterior) ve P-A (posteroanterior) bending stiffness values between PCDP and LCP, P=0.37 and P=0.80 respectively. However LCP provided significantly stiffer fixation in medial and lateral bending tests than PCDP (P=0.037) and (P=0.016), respectively. But no significant difference was detected between the two plating system in the torsional stiffness P=0.15.

Conclusion

These results do not show any significant biomechanical difference in the applied torsional and bending stresses between LCP and PCDP. However the remarkably increased persistent compression effect of the PCDP created a considerable stress on fracture edges which may accelerate bone healing.

Level of Evidence

Level 5