• Veterinary surgery : VS · Jan 2009

    Biomechanical comparison of two alternative tibial plateau leveling osteotomy plates with the original standard in an axially loaded gap model: an in vitro study.

    • Paul A Kloc, Michael P Kowaleski, Alan S Litsky, Nancy O Brown, and Kenneth A Johnson.
    • The Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory, and the Orthopaedic BioMaterials Laboratory, TheOhio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
    • Vet Surg. 2009 Jan 1; 38 (1): 40-8.

    ObjectiveTo compare the axial compression stiffness of osteotomized canine tibiae stabilized with Slocum, Securos, or Synthes plates after a tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO) procedure.Study DesignIn vitro, paired comparison of cadaveric tibial constructs subjected to mechanical testing under an axial load.Sample PopulationCanine tibiae (n=16 pairs) from skeletally mature male and female dogs of various breeds (18-55 kg).MethodsTibial pairs (n=16) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 study cohorts (n=8 pairs/cohort): cohort 1, tibial osteotomy stabilization with a Slocum or a Securos plate, or cohort 2, tibial osteotomy stabilization with a Slocum or a Synthes plate. One tibia from each pair was stabilized with 1 of each plate design assigned to the cohort after TPLO. A 3.2 mm osteotomy gap was maintained during plate application in all constructs. Load and axial displacement were recorded while constructs were loaded to 2000 N in axial compression. Failure loads were not reported because no distinct yield point or failure point was evident within the load range for many specimens. Failure modes were recorded for each construct, and photographs of typical failures were obtained. Stiffness (N/mm) was calculated from load-displacement curves. Paired comparisons of mean stiffness were performed within study groups using a paired t-test. Significance was set at P<.05.ResultsThe mean construct stiffnesses for the Slocum (383+/-183 N/mm) and Securos (258+/-64.1 N/mm) constructs were not significantly different (P=.164; power=0.566). The mean construct stiffness for the Synthes constructs (486+/-91.0 N/mm) was significantly greater than that of the Slocum constructs (400+/-117 N/mm); P=.0468. Modes of failure for the Slocum (16/16) and Securos (8/8) constructs included plastic deformation of the implant with valgus deformity combined with fibular luxation (2/16 Slocum; 1/8 Securos) or fibular fracture (2/16 Slocum; 4/8 Securos). Most Synthes constructs underwent elastic deformation (7/8). One Synthes construct fractured in the sagittal plane through the tibial plateau depression at the point of load application.ConclusionsThe Slocum and Securos plate/tibia construct have similar stiffness, whereas the Synthes/tibia constructs are significantly stiffer than the Slocum/tibia constructs. Modes of fixation failure observed in this model were consistent with TPLO fixation failures observed clinically.Clinical RelevanceConstruct stiffness in axial load varies with implant type. Implants that confer higher stiffness to the construct may result in greater fixation stability in tibial metaphyseal osteotomies.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.