4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Fatigue analysis of plates used for fracture stabilization in small dogs and cats

Journal

VETERINARY SURGERY
Volume 35, Issue 6, Pages 573-578

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2006.00191.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective - To evaluate the fatigue life of stacked and single, veterinary cuttable plates (VCP) and small, limited contact, dynamic compression plates (LC-DCP). Study Design - In vitro biomechanical study. Methods - Fracture models (constructs; n=8) were assembled for each of 6 groups all with 8-hole plates: 2.0 mm LC-DCP; 2.4 mm LC-DCP; single 1.5/2.0 mm VCP; stacked 1.5/2.0 mm VCP; single 2.0/2.7 mm VCP; and stacked 2.0/2.7 mm VCP. Plate(s) were secured to 2 polyvinylchloride pipe lengths, mounted in a testing system with a custom jig, and subjected to axial loading (10-100 N) for 1,000,000 cycles at 10 Hz or until failure. Differences in number of cycles to failure among groups were compared. Failure mode was determined. Results - All LC-DCP and single VCP constructs failed before 1,000,000 cycles. Stacked 2.0/2.7 mm VCP constructs withstood 1,000,000 cycles without failure. ANOVA and Fisher's least significant difference tests demonstrated significantly more cycles to failure for the stacked 1.5/2.0 mm VCP and stacked 2.0/2.7 mm VCP compared with the single 1.5/2.0 mm VCP, single 2.0/2.7 mm VCP, 2.0 mm LC-DCP, or 2.4 mm LC-DCP. Constructs that failed did so through a screw hole adjacent to the gap. Conclusion - Stacked VCP constructs have greater fatigue lives than comparably sized LC-DCP or single VCP constructs. Plates with 2.4 mm screws were not significantly different from the comparable construct with 2.0 mm screws. Clinical Relevance - Although these data reveal that stacked VCP create a superior construct with respect to cyclic fatigue, surgeons must decide whether this is a clinical advantage on a case-by-case basis. (c) Copyright 2006 by The American College of Veterinary Surgeons.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available