Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2014; 27(02): 91-96
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-13-01-0002
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

In vitro biomechanical comparison of the effects of cerclage wires, an intramedullary pin and the combination there of on an oblique osteotomy of the canine tibia

J. van der Zee
1   Valley Farm Animal Hospital, Faerie Glen, Pretoria, South Africa
› Author Affiliations
Prof. G. L. Coetzee for examining the thesis submitted from this study. This project was funded by the Medical University of South Africa.
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 07 January 2013

Accepted: 03 November 2013

Publication Date:
20 December 2017 (online)

Summary

Objectives

To compare the in vitro biomechanical effects of single loop cerclage wires, an intramedullary pin and the combination thereof as applied to an oblique mid-diaphyseal osteotomy of canine tibiae.

Methods

Three groups of nine bones with long oblique osteotomies were repaired with the following methods: 1) Three single loop cerclage wires and a transcortical skewer pin, 2) intramedullary pinning with a smooth Steinmann pin, and 3) a combination of both methods. The repaired constructs were tested in a single cycle four-point-bending test to failure. Load displacement curves were drawn and the following parameters were calculated or extrapolated: Stiffness, load at yield, and force resisted at 2 mm actuator displacement. The latter was determined to demonstrate the difference in the amount of energy absorbed between the different groups.

Results

The stiffness and force resisted at 2 mm displacement of the groups with cerclage wires were significantly higher than the group with an intramedullary pin alone (p ≤ 0.05). The differences in stiffness (p = 0.15) and force required at 2 mm displacement (p = 0.56) between cerclage wires and the combination of cerclage wires and intramedullary pins were not significant.

Clinical relevance

Cerclage wire repair results in higher stiffness than repair with an intramedullary pin. When cerclage wires are combined with an intramedullary pin, the intramedullary pin does not provide protection to the cerclage wire repair and the wires or the bone under the wires has to fail before the pin resists significant load.

 
  • References

  • 1 Boudrieau RJ, Sinibaldi KR. Principles of long bone fracture management. Semin Vet Med Surg Small Anim 1992; 7: 44-62.
  • 2 Hinko PJ, Rhinelander FW. Effective use of cerclage in the treatment of long-bone fractures in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1975; 166: 520-524.
  • 3 Withrow SJ. Use and misuse of full cerclage wires in fracture repair. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1978; 8: 201-212.
  • 4 Hunt JM, Aitken ML, Denny HR. et al. The complications of diaphyseal fractures in dogs: A review of 100 cases. J Small Anim Pract 1980; 21: 103-119.
  • 5 Newton CD, Hohn RB. Fracture non-union resulting from cerclage appliances. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1974; 164: 503-508.
  • 6 Sumner-Smith G. Delayed unions and nonunions. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim 1991; 21: 745-758.
  • 7 Schrader SC. Complications associated with the use of Steinmann intramedullary pins and cerclage wires for fixation of long-bone fractures. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1991; 21: 687-703.
  • 8 Hummel DW, Lanz OI, Werre SR. Complications of cementless total hip replacement. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2010; 23: 424-432.
  • 9 Fitzpatrick N, Nikolaou C, Yeadon R. et al. String-of-pearls locking plate and cerclage wire stabilization of periprosthetic femoral fractures after total hip replacement in six dogs. Vet Surg 2012; 41: 180-188.
  • 10 Berend KR, Lombardi AV, Mallory TH. et al. Cerclage wires or cables for the management of intraoperative fracture associated with a cementless, tapered femoral prosthesis: results at 2 to 16 years. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (7 Suppl 2) 17-21.
  • 11 Giannoudis PV, Kanakaris NK, Tsiridis E. Principles of internal fixation and selection of implants for periprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury 2007; 38: 669-687.
  • 12 Huang MT, Lin CJ. Percutaneous cerclage wiring-assisted interlocking nailing for torsional tibia fractures: A modification with improved safety and simplicity. J Trauma 2011; 71: 1054-1059.
  • 13 Gropper PT, Bowen V. Cerclage wiring of metacarpal fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1984; 188: 203-207.
  • 14 Cheng SL, Smith TJ, Davey JR. A comparison of the strength and stability of six techniques of cerclage wire fixation for fractures. J Orthop Trauma 1993; 7: 221-225.
  • 15 Roe SC. Evaluation of tension obtained by use of three knots for tying cerclage wires by surgeons of various abilities and experience. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003; 220: 334-336.
  • 16 Guadagni JR, Drummond DS. Strength of surgical wire fixation. Clin Orthop 1986; 209: 176-181.
  • 17 Meyer DC, Ramseier LE, Lajtai G. et al. A new method for cerclage wire fixation to maximal pre-tension with minimal elongation to failure. Clin Biomech 2003; 18: 975-980.
  • 18 Wilson JW, Belloli DM, Robbins T. Resistance of cerclage to knot failure. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1985; 187: 389-391.
  • 19 Pardo AD. Methods of internal fracture fixation: Cerclage wiring and tension band fixation. In: Slatter D. editor. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1993. pg. 1993-1610.
  • 20 Roe S. Internal Fracture Fixation. In: Slatter D. editor. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2003: 1798-1818.
  • 21 Howard PE. Principles of intramedullary pin and wire fixation. Semin Vet Med Surg Small Anim 1991; 6: 52-67.
  • 22 Johnston SA, von Feil DJF, Dejardin L. et al. Internal fracture fixation. In: Tobias KM, Johnston SA. editors. Veterinary Surgery Small Animal. Missouri: Saunders Elsevier; 2012. pg. 2012-577.
  • 23 Piermattei DL. Fractures: Classification, Diagnosis and Treatment. In: Piermattei DL, Flo GL, de Camp CE. editors. Brinker, Piermattei and Flo's Handbook of Small Animal Orthopedics and Fracture Repair. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2006. pg. 2006-100.
  • 24 Smith GK. Orthopaedic Biomaterials. In: Newton CD, Nunamaker DM. editors. Textbook of Small Animal Orthopedics. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 1985. pg. 1985-231.
  • 25 Smith BA, Kerwin SC, Hosgood G. et al. Mechanical comparison of two methods for interfragmentary fixation in a short oblique fracture model. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1996; 9: 145-151.
  • 26 DeYoung DJ, Probst CW. Methods of internal fracture fixation: General principles. In: Slatter D. editor. Textbook of Small Animal Surgery. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 1993: 1610-1640.
  • 27 Nunamaker DM. Methods of internal fixation. In: Newton CD, Nunamaker DM. editors. Textbook of Small Animal Orthopedics. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1985. pg. 1985-261.
  • 28 Laurence M, Freeman MAR, Swanson SAV. Engineering considerations in the internal fixation of fractures of the tibial shaft. J Bone Joint Surg 1969; 51-B: 754-768.
  • 29 Burstein AH, Frankel VH. A standard test for laboratory animal bone. J Biomech 1971; 4: 155-158.
  • 30 Aron DN. Oblique fractures: special considerations for management. Comp Cont Edu 1990; 12: 1743-1754.
  • 31 Chitchumnong P, Brooks SC, Stafford GD. Comparison of three- and four-point flexural strength testing of denture-base polymers. Dental Mat 1989; 5: 2-5.
  • 32 Roe SC. Mechanical characteristics and comparisons of cerclage wires: introduction of the double-wrap and loop/twist tying configuration. Vet Surg 1997; 26: 310-316.
  • 33 Burnstein AH. Orthopaedic biomechanical principles. In: Burnstein AH, Wright TM. editors. Fundamentals of Orthopaedic Biomechanics. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1994. pg. 1994-110.
  • 34 Schwarz PD. Fracture biomechanics of the appendicular skeleton: Causes and assessment. In: Bojrab MJ, Smeak DD, Bloomberg MS. et al. editors. Disease mechanisms in small animal surgery. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1993. pg. 1993-1009.
  • 35 Carter DR, Spengler DM. Biomechanics of fracture. In: Sumner-Smith editor. Bone. Dubendorf: AO Publishing; 2002. pg. 264.