Biomechanical Properties of the 1.5 mm Locking Compression Plate: Comparison with the 1.5 and 2.0 mm Straight Plates in Compression and Torsion

Abstract

Objectives The purpose was to compare the biomechanical properties of a 1.5 mm locking compression plate (1.5 LCP) to the 1.5 mm straight plate (1.5 P), 1.5 mm straight plate stacked (1.5 PSt) and 2.0 mm straight plate (2.0 P) in compression and torsion. We hypothesized that biomechanical properties of the 1.5 LCP would be equivalent to properties of the 1.5 P and would represent an alternative for the treatment of radial fractures in miniature breed dogs in which those plates would be used.

Materials and Methods A 1 mm fracture gap model was created with a bone surrogate stabilized with a six-hole plate. Sixteen constructs were built for each of the four plate configurations. Eight constructs from each group were tested in compression to failure and eight constructs were tested in torsion to failure.

Results In compression testing, the 1.5 LCP was stiffer than the 1.5 P, and had similar stiffness than the 1.5 PSt and the 2.0 P. The load at yield of the 1.5 LCP was slightly lower than the 1.5 P. In torsion, the 1.5 LCP and 1.5 P had similar stiffness, but 1.5 LCP was slightly stronger than 1.5 P. The 1.5 PSt and 2.0 P were overall superior to the 1.5 LCP but only marginally so for the 1.5 PSt.

Clinical Relevance The 1.5 LCP can be considered biomechanically equivalent to the 1.5 P under the present experimental conditions. The use of the 1.5 LCP can be considered as an option for radial fracture repair in dogs in which a 1.5 P would have otherwise been used. The use of a locking plate to improve overall success rate, in these fractures, remains to be confirmed clinically.

Keywords

locking compression plates - biomechanical properties - fracture fixation - radial fracture - dog

Author Contributions

Noel M. M. Moens and John Runciman contributed to conception of study, study design, acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation. Gwyneth K. Watrous contributed to acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation. Tom W. G. Gibson contributed to conception of study, study design and data analysis and interpretation. All authors drafted, revised and approved the submitted manuscript.

• References

• 1 Phillips IR. A survey of bone fractures in the dog and cat. J Small Anim Pract 1979; 20 (11) 661-674
• 2 Larsen LJ, Roush JK, McLaughlin RM. Bone plate fixation of distal radius and ulna fractures in small- and miniature-breed dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1999; 35 (03) 243-250
• 3 Watrous GK, Moens NMM. Cuttable plate fixation for small breed dogs with radius and ulna fractures: retrospective study of 31 dogs. Can Vet J 2017; 58 (04) 377-382
• 4 Bichot S, Gibson TW, Moens NM, Runciman RJ, Allen DG, Monteith GM. Effect of the length of the superficial plate on bending stiffness, bending strength and strain distribution in stacked 2.0-2.7 veterinary cuttable plate constructs. An in vitro study. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2011; 24 (06) 426-434
• 5 Fruchter AM, Holmberg DL. Mechanical analysis of the veterinary cuttable plate. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1991; 4: 116-119
• 6 DeCamp CE, Johnston SA, DeJardin LM. , et al. Fractures: classification, diagnosis, and treatment. In: Brinker, Piermattei, and Flo's Handbook of Small Animal Orthopedics and Fracture Repair. 5th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2016: 120-121
• 7 Cronier P, Pietu G, Dujardin C, Bigorre N, Ducellier F, Gerard R. The concept of locking plates. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2010; 96: S17-S36
• 8 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 (08) 1093-1110
• 9 Schütz M, Südkamp NP. Revolution in plate osteosynthesis: new internal fixator systems. J Orthop Sci 2003; 8 (02) 252-258
• 10 Greiwe RM, Archdeacon MT. Locking plate technology: current concepts. J Knee Surg 2007; 20 (01) 50-55
• 11 Frigg R. Development of the locking compression plate. Injury 2003; 34 (Suppl. 02) B6-B10
• 12 Little FM, Hill CM, Kageyama T. , et al. Bending properties of stainless steel dynamic compression plates and limited contact dynamic compression plates. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2001; 14: 64-68
• 13 Coleman JC, Hart RT, Owan I, Tankano Y, Burr DB. Characterization of dynamic three-dimensional strain fields in the canine radius. J Biomech 2002; 35 (12) 1677-1683
• 14 Rose BW, Pluhar GE, Novo RE, Lunos S. Biomechanical analysis of stacked plating techniques to stabilize distal radial fractures in small dogs. Vet Surg 2009; 38 (08) 954-960
• 15 Jain R, Podworny N, Hearn T, Richards RR, Schemitsch EH. A biomechanical evaluation of different plates for fixation of canine radial osteotomies. J Trauma 1998; 44 (01) 193-197
• 16 Miclau T, Remiger A, Tepic S, Lindsey R, McIff T. A mechanical comparison of the dynamic compression plate, limited contact-dynamic compression plate, and point contact fixator. J Orthop Trauma 1995; 9 (01) 17-22
• 17 Gordon S, Moens NM, Runciman J, Monteith G. The effect of the combination of locking screws and non-locking screws on the torsional properties of a locking-plate construct. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2010; 23 (01) 7-13
• 18 Fulkerson E, Egol KA, Kubiak EN, Liporace F, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ. Fixation of diaphyseal fractures with a segmental defect: a biomechanical comparison of locked and conventional plating techniques. J Trauma 2006; 60 (04) 830-835