Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2010; 23(01): 7-13
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-09-05-0055
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

The effect of the combination of locking screws and non-locking screws on the torsional properties of a locking-plate construct

S. Gordon
1   Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada
,
N. M. M. Moens
1   Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada
,
J. Runciman
2   Department of Engineering, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada
,
G. Monteith
1   Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 05 May 2009

Accepted: 28 July 2009

Publication Date:
19 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Little is known about the torsional properties of bone-plate constructs when a combination of locking and non-locking screws have been used. Sixty cadaveric canine femurs were divided into three groups. In the first group, the plate was affixed using three non-locking screws. In the second group, only locking screws were used while a combination of one locking and two non-locking screws were used in the third group. All constructs were subjected to torsion until failure. Torque, angle of torsion, and work were all calculated at the maximum failure point, as well as at five degrees of plastic deformation, which was thought to be more representative of clinical failure. At the maximum failure point, the locking group had significantly higher torque, angle, and work values than the non-locking group. The combination group was intermediate to the two other groups, and significantly differed from the non-locking group in torque, and from the locking group in work. At five degrees of plastic deformation, the locking group required significantly higher torque and work than the non-locking group. The combination group required a significantly higher torque than the non-locking group. This study suggests that a construct composed of all locking screws will fail at a greater torque value, and sustain greater work to failure in torsion compared to a construct composed of all non-locking screws. The addition of a single locking screw to an otherwise non-locking construct will increase the torque at the offset failure point and may be of clinical value in constructs subjected to high torsional loads.

Keywords

LCP - non-locking screws - locking screws - torsion - canine femur
 

  • References

  • 1 Rüedi TP, Murphy WM.. AO principles of fracture management. Stuttgart; New York; Davos Platz, Switzerland: Thieme; AO Publishing; 2000: 27-51.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Luthi U, Rahn BA, Perren SM.. Area of contact between osteosynthesis plate and bone in internal fixation (author's transl). Aktuelle Traumatol 1980; 10 (03) 131-136.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gautier E, Perren SM, Ganz R.. (iii) Principles of internal fixation. Curr Orthop 1992; 6: 220-232.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wagner M.. General principles for the clinical use of the LCP. Injury 2003; 34 (Suppl. 02) Suppl B31-42.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Frigg R.. Development of the Locking Compression Plate. Injury 2003; 34 (Suppl. 02) Suppl B6-10.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gautier E, Sommer C.. Guidelines for the clinical application of the LCP. Injury 2003; 34 (Suppl. 02) Suppl B63-76.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Eijer H, Hauke C, Arens S. et al. PC-Fix and local infection resistance--influence of implant design on postoperative infection development, clinical and experimental results. Injury 2001; 32 (Suppl. 02) Suppl B38-43.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Aguila AZ, Manos JM, Orlansky AS. et al. In vitro bio-mechanical comparison of limited contat dynamic compression plate and locking compression plate. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2005; 18: 220-226.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gardner MJ, Brophy RH, Campbell D. et al. The mechanical behavior of locking compression plates compared with dynamic compression plates in a cadaver radius model. J Orthop Trauma 2005; 19: 597-603.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Korner J, Diederichs G, Arzdorf M. et al. A bio-mechanical evaluation of methods of distal humerus fracture fixation using locking compression plates versus conventional reconstruction plates. J Orthop Trauma 2004; 18: 286-293.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gardner MJ, Griffith MH, Demetrakopoulos D. et al. Hybrid locked plating of osteoporotic fractures of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: 1962-1967.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Roberts JW, Grindel I S, Rebholz B. et al. Biomechanical evaluation of locking plate radial shaft fixation: unicortical locking fixation versus mixed bi-cortical and unicortical fixation in a sawbone model. J Hand Surg [Am] 2007; 32: 971-975.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Radin EL.. Practical biomechanics for the orthopedic surgeon (2nd ed). New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Miller DL, Goswami T.. A review of locking compression plate biomechanics and their advantages as internal fixators in fracture healing. Clin Biomech 2007; 22: 1049-1062.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Egol KA, Kubiak EN, Fulkerson E. et al. Biomechanics of locked plates and screws. J Orthop Trauma 2004; 18: 488-493.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Fulkerson E, Egol KA, Kubiak EN. et al. Fixation of diaphyseal fractures with a segmental defect: a bio-mechanical comparison of locked and conventional plating techniques. J Trauma 2006; 60: 830-835.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sod GA, Mitchell CF, Hubert JD. et al. In vitro bio-mechanical comparison of locking compression plate fixation and limited-contact dynamic compression plate fixation of osteotomized equine third metacarpal bones. Vet Surg 2008; 37: 283-288.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Stoffel K, Booth G, Rohrl SM. et al. A comparison of conventional versus locking plates in intraarticular calcaneus fractures: a biomechanical study in human cadavers. Clin Biomech 2007; 22: 100-105.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kim T, Ayturk UM, Haskell A. et al. Fixation of osteoporotic distal fibula fractures: A biomechanical comparison of locking versus conventional plates. J Foot Ankle Surg 2007; 46: 2-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Florin M, Arzdorf M, Linke B. et al. Assessment of stiffness and strength of 4 different implants available for equine fracture treatment: a study on a 20 degrees oblique long-bone fracture model using a bone substitute. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 231-238.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Snow M, Thompson G, Turner PG.. A mechanical comparison of the locking compression plate (LCP) and the low contact-dynamic compression plate (DCP) in an osteoporotic bone model. J Orthop Trauma 2008; 22: 121-125.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Burkhart KJ, Mueller LP, Krezdorn D. et al. Stability of radial head and neck fractures: a biomechanical study of six fixation constructs with consideration of three locking plates. J Hand Surg [Am] 2007; 32: 1569-1575.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Siffri PC, Peindl RD, Coley ER. et al. Biomechanical analysis of blade plate versus locking plate fixation for a proximal humerus fracture: comparison using cadaveric and synthetic humeri. J Orthop Trauma 2006; 20: 547-554.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Boswell S, McIff TE, Trease CA. et al. Mechanical characteristics of locking and compression plate constructs applied dorsally to distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg [Am] 2007; 32: 623-629.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Weinstein DM, Bratton DR, Ciccone 2nd WJ. et al. Locking plates improve torsional resistance in the stabilization of three-part proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2006; 15: 239-243.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Leitner M, Pearce SG, Windolf M. et al. Comparison of locking and conventional screws for maintenance of tibial plateau positioning and biomechanical stability after locking tibial plateau leveling osteotomy plate fixation. Vet Surg 2008; 37: 357-365.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Miclau T, Remiger A, Tepic S. et al. A mechanical comparison of the dynamic compression plate, limited contact-dynamic compression plate, and point contact fixator. J Orthop Trauma 1995; 9: 17-22.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 O'Toole RV, Andersen RC, Vesnovsky O. et al. Are locking screws advantageous with plate fixation of humeral shaft fractures? A biomechanical analysis of synthetic and cadaveric bone. J Orthop Trauma 2008; 22: 709-715.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Stoffel K, Lorenz KU, Kuster MS.. Biomechanical considerations in plate osteosynthesis: the effect ofplate-to-bone compression with and without angular screw stability. J Orthop Trauma 2007; 21: 362-368.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 DeTora M, Kraus K.. Mechanical testing of 3.5 mm locking and non-locking bone plates. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21: 318-322.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Chiodo TA, Ziccardi VB, Janal M. et al. Failure strength of 2.0 locking versus 2.0 conventional synthes mandibular plates: a laboratory model. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 64: 1475-1479.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Weiss DB, Kaar SG, Frankenburg EP. et al. Locked versus unlocked plating with respect to plate length in an ulna fracture model. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2008; 66: 5-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Amato NS, Richards A, Knight TA. et al. Ex vivo bio-mechanical comparison of the 2.4 mm uniLOCK reconstruction plate using 2.4 mm locking versus standard screws for fixation of acetabular osteotomy in dogs. Vet Surg 2008; 37: 741-748.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Gardner MJ, Helfet DL, Lorich DG.. Has locked plating completely replaced conventional plating?. Am J Orthop 2004; 33: 439-446.
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Marti A, Fankhauser C, Frenk A. et al. Biomechanical evaluation of the less invasive stabilization system for the internal fixation of distal femur fractures. J Ortho Trauma 2001; 15: 482-487.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Kubiak EN, Fulkerson E, Strauss E. et al. The evolution of locked plates. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (Suppl. 04) Suppl 189-200.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 El Maraghy AW, El Maraghy MW, Nousiainen M. et al. Influence of the number of cortices on the stiffness of plate fixation of diaphyseal fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2001; 15: 186-191.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 McGuire RA, St John KR, Agnew SG.. Analysis of the torque applied to bone screws by trauma surgeons. Comparisons based on years of experience and material of implant construction. Am J Orthop 1995; 24: 254-256.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Perren SM.. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. The scientific basis of biological internal fixation: choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84: 1093-1110.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 An YH, Draughn RA. (Editors). Mechanical testing of bone and the bone-implant interface. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Gibson TW, Moens NM, Runciman RJ. et al. Evaluation of a short glass fibre-reinforced tube as a model for cat femur for biomechanical testing of orthopaedic implants. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2008; 21: 195-201.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Cristofolini L, Viceconti M.. Mechanical validation of whole bone composite tibia models. J Biomech 2000; 33: 279-288.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Cristofolini L, Viceconti M, Cappello A. et al. Mechanical validation of whole bone composite femur models. J Biomech 1996; 29: 525-535.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Heiner AD.. Structural properties of fourth-generation composite femurs and tibias. J Biomech 2008; 41: 3282-3284.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Heiner AD, Brown TD.. Structural properties of a new design of composite replicate femurs and ti-bias. J Biomech 2001; 34: 773-781.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Elfick AP, Bedi G, Port A. et al. Design and validation of a surrogate humerus for biomechanical testing. J Biomech 2002; 35: 533-536.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Brooks DB, Burstein AH, Frankel VH.. The bio-mechanics of torsional fractures. The stress concentration effect of a drill hole. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1970; 52: 507-514.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Remiger A, Miclau T, Lindsey RW.. The torsional strength of bones with residual screw holes from plates with unicortical and bicortical purchase. Clin Biomech 1997; 12: 71-73.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Burstein AH, Currey J, Frankel VH. et al. Bone strength. The effect of screw holes. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1972; 54: 1143-1156.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Malone CB, Heiple KG, Burstein AH.. Bone strength: before and after removal of unthreaded and threaded pin and screws. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1977; March-April 123: 259-260.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar