4.2 Article

Three internal fixation methods for Danis-Weber-B distal fibular fractures: A biomechanical comparison in an osteoporotic fibula model

期刊

FOOT AND ANKLE SURGERY
卷 28, 期 7, 页码 845-851

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fas.2021.11.006

关键词

Locking plate; Neutralization plate; Ankle; Osteoporosis; Synthetic bone

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A common agreement for the surgical treatment of osteoporotic ankle fractures has not been defined yet. This study evaluated the mechanical stability of locked and conventional plates on osteoporotic Danis-Weber-B-fibula fracture models. The results showed that although no overall mechanical superiority was found, the locking plate groups exhibited higher shear and rotational stability compared to the neutralization plate group.
A common agreement for the surgical treatment of osteoporotic ankle fractures has not been defined yet although locking plates are preferred for fractures with poor bone quality. This study aims to evaluate the mechanical stability of locked and conventional plates on osteoporotic Danis-Weber-B-fibula fracture models. Fractured custom-made osteoporotic fibulae were treated with neutralization plate plus lag screw, locking plate plus lag screw, or a standalone locking plate. Load until failure was applied mimicking single -leg stance. Stiffness, failureload, and interfragmentary movements were investigated. Stiffness, failureload and axial fragment movement showed no significant differences among groups. Shear movements and fragment rotation around the shaft of the neutralization plate were on average twice as high as those of the locking plates. Although no superiority was shown for overall mechanical performance, the locking plate groups exhibited higher shear and rotational stability than the neutralization plate. (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of European Foot and Ankle Society. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

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

4.2
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