Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2020; 33(02): 089-095
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3399572
Original Research
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Biomechanical Comparison of Two Locking Plate Constructs for the Stabilization of Feline Tibial Fractures

Natasha M. Hottmann
1  Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States
,
Matthew D. Johnson
1  Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States
,
Scott A. Banks
2  College of Engineering, University of Florida Gainesville, Florida, United States
,
David Tuyn
2  College of Engineering, University of Florida Gainesville, Florida, United States
,
Daniel D. Lewis
1  Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States
› Author Affiliations
Funding This study received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim Veterinary Scholars Program; Discretionary Funds from the University of Florida Comparative Orthopedics and Biomechanics Laboratory, Gainesville, FL.
Further Information

Publication History

16 September 2018

27 September 2019

Publication Date:
13 December 2019 (online)

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical characteristics of locking compression plate (LCP) and conical coupling plate (CCP) constructs for the stabilization of experimentally induced gap fractures in cat tibiae.

Materials and Methods Pelvic limbs were harvested from eight cat cadavers. Paired tibiae were stripped of all soft tissues, and randomly assigned to the LCP or CCP stabilization group. An eight-hole 2.7 mm LCP or a six-hole 2.5 mm CCP was applied to the medial surface of each tibia. A 1-cm segment of the tibia was excised centrally beneath the plate. The specimens were potted, then tested in non-destructive four-point craniocaudal and mediolateral bending, followed by non-destructive axial compression. Each construct was subsequently loaded to failure in axial compression. Bending and axial stiffness, yield load and failure load were calculated for each specimen.

Results The LCP constructs were significantly stiffer than the CCP constructs when subjected to non-destructive bending and axial loading. Craniocaudal bending stiffness was significantly greater than mediolateral bending stiffness for both constructs. Yield load and failure load were significantly greater for LCP constructs compared with CCP constructs.

Clinical Significance LCP may be a more suitable implant for stabilizing complex diaphyseal tibial fractures in cats. Additional supplemental fixation should be considered when using CCP to stabilize unreconstructed diaphyseal tibial fractures in cats. Further clinical investigation of both implants is recommended.

Authors' Contributions

Natasha M. Hottmann and David Tuyn contributed to study design, acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation. Matthew D. Johnson and Daniel D. Lewis contributed to conception of study, study design and data analysis and interpretation. Scott A. Banks contributed to study design and data analysis and interpretation. All authors drafted, revised and approved the submitted manuscript.