Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2004; 17(02): 91-96
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1636480
Clinical Communication
Schattauer GmbH

Fracture stabilization with type II external fixator vs. type I external fixator with IM pin

Finite element analysis
R. Shahar
1   Section of Surgery, Koret School of Veterinary Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
,
Y. Shani
1   Section of Surgery, Koret School of Veterinary Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received 23 May 2003

Accepted 23 November 2003

Publication Date:
08 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Bilateral external fixator frames are frequently preferred over unilateral frames due to their superior rigidity. The objective of this study was to compare the biomechanical features of bilateral external fixators with those of unilateral external fixators that are combined with an intra-medullary pin. Three-dimensional, solid models were created of several unilateral and bilateral external fixator frames. The callus in the fracture gap was also modeled. Biomechanical analyses of all constructs were performed by the finite element method. This modeling approach allows the determination of stresses, displacements, and strains in the components of the various constructs, and thus the calculation of their relative stiffness. In addition, local shear strain values in the fracture gap, currently thought to be one of the deciding factors in the process of bone healing, can also be determined. The concept of equivalent stiffness modulus, which represents a weighed average stiffness of a construct to various loads, was defined. Using this concept, it was shown that when the intramedullary pin is well seated in the epiphyseal bone, the various unilateral frames have an equivalent stiffness modulus that is similar or even greater than that of bilateral frames with a similar arrangement of transcortical pins.

Keywords

Finite element analysis - external fixator
 

  • References

  • 1 An KN, Kasman RA, Chao EYS. Theoretical analysis of fracture healing monitoring with external fixators. Eng Med 1988; 17: 11-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Auger J, Dupuis J, Boudreault F. et al. Comparison of multistage versus one-stage destabilization of a type II external fixator used to stabilize an oblique tibial osteotomy in dogs. Vet Surg 2002; 31: 10-22.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bathe KJ. Finite element procedures. Upper saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall: 1996: 1-330.
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Chao EYS, Kasman RA, An KN. Rigidity and stress analyses of external fracture fixation devices a theoretical approach. J Biomech 1982; 15: 972-83.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Egan JM, Shearer JR. Behavior of an external fixation frame incorporating an angular separation of the fixator pins. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1987; 223: 265-74.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Egger EL. Static strength evaluation of six external skeletal fixation configurations. Vet Surg 1983; 12: 130-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Huiskes R, Chao EYS, Crippen TE. Parametric analyses of pin-bone stresses in external fracture fixation devices. J Orthop Res 1985; 03: 341-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Juan JA, Prat J, Vera P. et al. Biomechanical consequences of callus development in Hoffman, Wagner, Orthofix and Illizarov external fixators. J Biomech 1992; 25: 995-1006.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kowaleski MP, Marston MT, Kraus KH. Nonlinear increasing gap stiffness in type II external skeletal fixation: a mechanical study. Vet Surg 2003; 32: 120-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kraus KH, Wotton HM, Rand WM. Mechanical comparison of two external fixator clamp designs. Vet Surg 1998; 27: 224-30.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lacroix D, Prendergast PJ. A mechano-regulation model for tissue differentiation during fracture healing: analysis of gap size and healing. J Biomech 2002; 35: 1163-71.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lauer SK, Aron DN, Evans MD. Finite element method evaluation: articulations and diagonals in an 8-pin type 1B external skeletal fixator. Vet Surg 2000; 29: 28-37.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Marti JM, Miller A. Delimitation of safe corridors for the insertion of external fixator pins in the dog. 1: Hind limb. J Sm An Prct 1994; 35: 16-23.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Marti JM, Miller A. Delimitation of safe corridors for the insertion of external fixator pins in the dog. 1: Forelimb. J Sm An Prct 1994; 35: 78-85.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Norris JL, Kraus KH, O’Leary JP. Effect of a supplemental plate on the stiffness of a type I external fixator. Vet Surg 2002; 31: 133-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Okrasinski EB, Pardo AD, Graehler RA. Biomechanical evaluation of acrylic external skeletal fixation in dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1991; 199: 1590-3.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Oni OOA, Capper M, Soutis C. A finite element analysis of the effect of pin distribution on the rigidity of a unilateral external fixation system. Injury 1993; 24: 525-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Perren SM. Physical and biological aspects of fracture healing with special reference to internal fixation. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1979; 138: 175-96.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Prat J, Juan JA. et al. Load transmission through the callus site with external fixation systems: theoretical and experimental analysis. J Biomech 1994; 27: 469-78.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Pollo FE, Hyman WA, Hulse DA. The role of the external bar in a 6-pin type 1 external skeletal fixation device. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1993; 06: 75-9.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Shahar R. Evaluation of stiffness and stress of external fixators with curved acrylic connecting bars. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2000; 13: 65-72.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Shahar R. Relative stiffness and stress of type I and type II external fixators: acrylic versus stainless steel connecting bars a theoretical approach. Vet Surg 2000; 29: 59-69.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Shani J, Shahar R. The unilateral external fixator and acrylic connecting bar, combined with I.M pin, for treatment of tibial fractures. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2002; 15: 104-10.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Willer RL, Egger EL, Histand MB. Comparison of stainless steel versus acrylic for the connecting bar of external skeletal fixators. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1991; 27: 541-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar