Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2013; 26(02): 117-122
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-12-03-0045
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

The effect of locked screw angulation on the biomechanical properties of the S.P.S. Free-Block plate

M. K. A. Merino
1   Department of Veterinary Surgery and Anesthesiology, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Botucatu, SP, Brazil
,
S. C. Rahal
1   Department of Veterinary Surgery and Anesthesiology, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Botucatu, SP, Brazil
,
C. R. Ribeiro
2   Lab. Ensaios Mecânicos e Metalográficos (LEMM), IPAC, Jaú, SP, Brazil
,
C. R. Padovani
3   Department of Biostatistics, Biosciences Institute, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Botucatu, SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 25 March 2012

Accepted 13 September 2012

Publication Date:
18 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: Among the locked internal fixators is one denominated S.P.S. (Synthesis Pengo System) Free-Block, which was designed with a locking ring that allows the screw to be locked and positioned obliquely. Due to the paucity of biomechanical studies on this system, the present work aimed to evaluate the influence of locked screw angulation on the resistance of the S.P.S. Free-Block plate.

Methods: Forty synthetic bone cylinders with 10 mm fracture gap were used. Forty seven-hole 3.5 mm stainless steel plates (two AO-like dynamic compression holes and five locked holes) were assembled according to the orientation of the locked screws: monocortical screws were positioned at 90° to the long axis of the cylinder (Group 1), and monocortical screws were positioned at 70° to its cylinder long axis (Group 2). In both groups, AO-like dynamic compression hole screws were positioned bicortically and neutrally. For each group, six specimens were tested until failure, three in bending and three in compression, to determine the loads for fatigue testing. Subsequently, for each group, 14 specimens were tested for failure - seven by bending and seven in compression.

Results: No significant failure differences were observed between Groups 1 and 2 under static-loading or fatigue test.

Clinical significance: In a fracture gap model the orientation of the locked monocortical screws did not show any influence on the mechanical performance of the S.P.S. Free-Block to tests of axial compression and four-point bending.

Keywords

Plate - screw - static testing - fatigue testing - bone
 

  • References

  • 1 Perren SM. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84: 1093-1110.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Uhthoff HK, Poitras P, Backman DS. Internal plate fixation of fractures: short history and recent developments. J Orthop Sci 2006; 11: 118-126.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Strauss EJ, Schwarzkopf R, Kummer F. et al. The current status of locked plating: the good the bad and the ugly. J Orthop Trauma 2008; 22: 479-486.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Szypryt P, Forward D. The use and abuse of locking plates. Orthop Trauma 2009; 23: 281-290.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Miclau T, Martin RE. The evolution of modern plate osteosynthesis. Injury 1997; 28: SA3-SA6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wagner M. General principles for the clinical use of the LCP. Injury 2003; 34: S-B31-42.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cronier P, Pietu G, Dujardin C. et al. The concept of locking plates. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2010; 96S: S17-S36.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kääb MJ, Frenk A, Schmeling A. et al. Locked internal fixator. J Orthop Traum 2004; 18: 483-487.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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
  • 10 Sommer C. Biomechanics and clinical application principles of locking plates. Suomen Ortopedia ja Traumatologia 2006; 29: 20-24.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Niemeyer P, Südkamp NP. Principles and clinical application of the Locking Compression Plate (LCP). Acta Chir orthop Traum Čech 2006; 73: 221-228.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 S.P.S. Free-Block. www.biomecanica.com.br[HTML] . Biomecânica / Jaú; 2011 [Cited on 2012 November 07]. Available from: www.biomecanica.com.br/2011/portugues/produtos/trauma_placaseparafusos.asp
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Rahal SC, Correa MCE, Pereira OCM. et al. Mechanical testing of 3.5 mm Free-Block SPS plate. Vet Surg 2009; 38: E43.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Leung F, Zhu L, Ho H. et al. Palmar plate fixation of AO type C2 fracture of distal radius using a locking compression plate-a biomechanical study in a cadaveric model. J Hand Surg 2003; 28B: 263-266.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Björkenheim J-M, Pajarinen J, Savolainen V. Internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with a locking compression plate. Acta Orthop Scand 2004; 75: 741-745.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ahmad M, Nanda R, Bajwa AS. et al. Biomechanical testing of the locking compression plate: When does the distance between bone and implant significantly reduce construct stability?. Injury 2007; 38: 358-364.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Aguila AZ, Manos JM, Orlansky AS. et al. In vitro biomechanical comparison of limited contact dynamic compression plate and locking compression plate. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2005; 18: 220-226.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Mehin R, Jones B, Zhu Q. et al. A biomechanical study of conventional acetabular internal fracture fixation versus locking plate fixation. Can J Surg 2009; 52: 221-228.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Stoffel K, Dieter U, Stachowiak G. et al. Biomechanical testing of the LCP- how can stability in locked internal fixator be controlled?. Injury 2003; 34: SB11-SB19.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Fulkerson E, Egol KA, Kubiak EN. et al. Fixation of diaphyseal fractures with a segmental defect: a biomechanical comparison of locked and conventional plating techniques. J Trauma 2006; 60: 830-855.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Roberts JW, Grindel SI, Rebholz B. et al. Biomechanical evaluation of locking plate radial shaft fixation: unicortical locking fixation versus mixed bicortical and unicortical fixation in a sawbone model. J Hand Surg Am 2007; 32: 971-975.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kanchanomai C, Phiphobmongkol V, Muanjan P. Fatigue failure of an orthopedic implant - A locking compression plate. Eng Failure Analysis 2008; 15: 521-530.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 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
  • 24 Fitzpatrick DC, Doornink J, Madey SM. et al. Relative stability of conventional and locked plating fixation in a model of the osteoporotic femoral diaphysis. Clin Biomech 2009; 24: 203-209.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Zehnder S, Bledsoe JG, Puryear A. The effects of screw orientation in severely osteoporotic bone: A comparison with locked plating. Clin Biomech 2009; 24: 589-594.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Yánez A, Carta JA, Garcés G. Biomechanical evaluation of a new system to improve screw fixation in osteoporotic bones. Med Eng Phys 2010; 32: 532-541.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Sharir A, Barak MM, Shahar R. Whole bone mechanics and mechanical testing. Vet J 2008; 177: 8-17.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kubiak EN, Fulkerson E, Strauss E. et al. The evolution of locked plates. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: 189-200.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Sommer C, Babst R, Muller M. et al. Locking compression plate loosening and plate breakage: a report of four cases. J Orthop Trauma 2004; 18: 571-577.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar