4.4 Article

Evaluation of a polyaxial angle-stable volar plate in a distal radius C-fracture model - A biomechanical study

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.12.005

关键词

Distal radial fracture; Variable angle; Polyaxial locking; Angular stable plate; Biomechanics; Radius fracture; Two-column plate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Polyaxial angle-stable plating is thought to be particularly beneficial in the management of complex intra-articular fractures of the distal radius. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether the technique provides stability to match that of conventional (fixed-angle) angle-stable constructs. Material and methods: In seven pairs of human cadaver radii, an Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Osteosynthese (AO) 23 C2.1 intra-articular fracture was created. One radius of each pair received a juxta-articular 2.4-mm locking compression plate (LCP) Volar Distal Radius Plate, whilst the contralateral one received a 2.4-mm Variable Angle Locking Compression Plate (LCP) Two-Column Volar Distal Radius Plate (both plates: Synthes, Oberdorf, Switzerland). Parameters tested were construct stiffness (static axial loading with 150 N), range of motion and secondary loss of reduction (dynamic 150 N axial loading over 5000 cycles). Stiffness and range of motion were measured both pre- and post-cycling. Results: The polyaxial constructs were significantly stiffer, both before and after cyclic testing. However, the two-column plates showed a significant loss of stiffness during cyclic testing. The range of motion was significantly greater, both initially and at the end of cyclic testing, in the fixed-angle constructs. The conventional constructs had significantly greater secondary loss of reduction. Conclusion: The polyaxial two-column plate tested in this study provides a biomechanically sound construct for the management of intra-articular fractures of the distal radius. Crown Copyright (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据