Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2019; 32(06): 440-446
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1692979
Original Research
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Comparative Stiffness of an Equine Distal Sesamoid Bone Fracture Model Stabilized with 3.5-mm versus 4.5-mm Cortical Bone Screws in Lag Fashion

Jessica R. Mampe
1  Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Iowa State University, College of Veterinary Medicine, Ames, Iowa, Unites States
,
1  Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Iowa State University, College of Veterinary Medicine, Ames, Iowa, Unites States
,
David G. Suarez-Fuentes
2  BluePearl Veterinary Partners, Franklin, Tennessee, Unites States
,
Karl H. Kraus
1  Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Iowa State University, College of Veterinary Medicine, Ames, Iowa, Unites States
› Author Affiliations
Funding The present study was funded by the Iowa State University—Faculty Development Funds.
Further Information

Publication History

08 November 2018

03 May 2019

Publication Date:
06 July 2019 (online)

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to to determine the comparative stiffness following repair of an axial sagittal fracture model in equine distal sesamoid bones using either a single 3.5-mm or 4.5-mm cortical bone screw placed in lag fashion.

Study Design The present study was an in vitro biomechanical study.

Results The mean (±standard deviation) stiffness value for the 4.5-mm screw–bone construct (522.49 N/mm ± 168.21) was significantly greater than the 3.5-mm screw-bone construct (408.46 N/mm ± 131.13) (p = 0.047). This represents a 28% difference in mean stiffness.

ConclusionsIn vitro, the 4.5-mm screw–bone construct creates a stiffer repair of fractured distal sesamoid bones by a margin of 28%. The 4.5-mm cortical bone screw may better withstand forces imparted on the distal sesamoid bone sustained during anaesthetic recovery, normal weight bearing and athletic exercise, thereby minimizing the risk of implant failure.

Author Contribution

J. Mampe (acquisition of data, data analysis and interpretation); D. Tatarniuk (conception of the study, study design, acquisition of data, data analysis and interpretation); D. Suarez (conception of the study, acquisition of data); K. Kraus (study design, data analysis and interpretation). All authors drafted, revised and approved the submitted manuscript.