Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1991; 4(02): 38-45
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1633250
Invited Article
Schattauer GmbH

The “Mixing” of Implant Systems

F. Baumgart
1   From the Laboratory for Experimental Surgery, Davos Platz, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received for publication 12 December 1990

Publication Date:
06 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

The so-called “mixing” of implants and instruments from different producers entertain certain risks.

The use of standardized implant materials (e.g. stainless steel ISO 5832/1) from different producers is necessary but is not sufficient to justify the use of an osteosynthesis plate from one source and a bone screw from another.

The design, dimensions, tolerances, manufacturing procedure, quality controls, and application technique of the instruments and implants also vary according to make. This can lead to damage, failure or fracture of the biomechanical system called “osteosynthesis” and hence the failure of the treatment undertaken. In the end, it is the patient who pays for these problems.

Some examples also illustrate the potential problems for the staff and institutions involved.

The use of a unique, consistent, well-tested, and approved set of implants and instruments is to be strongly recommended to avoid any additional risk.

Keywords

Osteosynthesis - mixing - liability - implants
 

  • References

  • 1 Müller ME, Allgöwer M, Schneider R, Willenegger H. Manual of Internal Fixation. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 1979
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Murphy EK. OR Nursing Law – Interchanging different product components; instilling eye drops before patient signs consent. AORN Journal. 1987 47. (1).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Anonymous Author. “Fracture Management Implant Characterization Study”. study, carried out by the Harrington Arthritis Research Centre, founded by AESCULAP Instruments Corporation.;
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Pohler O. Unpublished investigation, personal information. 1988
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mathys jr. R. personal information. 1988
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rüedi TP. Titan und Stahl in der Knochenchirurgie, Hefte zur Unfallheilkunde. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 1975. Heft 3.
    Google Scholar
  • 7 ISO Standard 5832 – Implants for Surgery – Metallic Materials – Part 1: Wrought Stainless Steel. International Organization for Standardization; Geneva: 1980
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 13.01, Medical Devices. Easton: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1985
    Google Scholar
  • 9 DIN 17443. »Stähle für chirurgische Implantate«, German standard for stainless steel for implants. Berlin: Beuth; 1986
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Brunner H. Personal comment. March 1989
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pohler O, Straumann F. Characteristics of the Stainless Steel ASIF/AO Implants. AO Bulletin. 1975
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Texhammar R. Checklist. A guide to care and maintenance of the AO/ASIF Instrumentation. Switzerland: Synthes AG; 1986
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Sequin F, Texhammar R. AO/ASIF Instrumentation. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 1981
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Disegi J. Mixing Titanium and Stainless Steel Implants, personal information. 1989
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Radford WJP. et al. Unacceptable Variation in the core Diameter of some AO type cancellous screws. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 1988; 81 (07) 384-6..
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Perren SM, Geret V, Tepic S, Rahn B. Quantitative Evaluation of Biocompatibility of Vanadium free Titanium Alloys. Biological and Biomechanical Performance of Biomaterials. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 1986
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Baumgart F. »Mischen« von Implantaten – ein grundsätzliches Problem. Helvetica Chirurgica Acta 1990; 57 (03) 495-513..
    PubMedGoogle Scholar