Comparative Stiffness Characteristics of Ilizarov- and Hexapod-type External Frame Constructs.

Carl Fenton, Daniel Henderson, Mikhail Samchukov, Alexander Cherkashin, Hemant Sharma
{"title":"Comparative Stiffness Characteristics of Ilizarov- and Hexapod-type External Frame Constructs.","authors":"Carl Fenton,&nbsp;Daniel Henderson,&nbsp;Mikhail Samchukov,&nbsp;Alexander Cherkashin,&nbsp;Hemant Sharma","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1539","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Ilizarov method and fixator are clinically recognised for the treatment of fractures, limb salvage and deformity correction. There have been extensive studies determining the basic mechanism for fracture healing using this technique. It is generally accepted that circular frames optimise the mechanical environment by reducing shear strain across the fracture while maintaining axial micromotion so as to promote fracture healing. There have been several new hexapod-type frames introduced into the market over the past 20 years with little comparative research into their biomechanical properties and resultant effects on the fracture environment.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>To investigate the biomechanical behaviours of the TrueLok-Hex (TL-HEX) and Taylor spatial frame (TSF) hexapod-type circular external fixators with comparison to traditional Ilizarov-type (TL-Ilizarov and TSF-Ilizarov) constructs and potential performance <i>in vivo</i>.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Testing was performed on standardised four-ring TSF and TL-HEX constructs matched by identical frames using Ilizarov threaded rod constructs for each set of components. All frames were tested under physiological levels of axial, bending and torsional loading. Load-deformation properties for each construct under each mode of loading were calculated and analysed statistically using ANOVA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Under axial loading, the Ilizarov construct utilising TL-HEX components demonstrated the greatest rigidity followed by the Ilizarov construct using TSF components. Under bending loads, the difference in rigidity between constructs was similar but less marked. Under torsional loading, both hexapod frames were seen to be significantly more rigid than the Ilizarov constructs. Overall deformation around neutral loading was much higher in the TSF frame due to an observed significant \"toe-in\" laxity in the strut universal joints. The remaining deformation of both hexapod frames was similar with a higher level of TL-HEX rigidity in axial loading and a higher level of TSF rigidity in bending and torsion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, both hexapod frame constructs were less rigid under axial loading but more rigid under bending and torsional loads than their comparative Ilizarov constructs. As a result of their Cardan universal joints, the TSF demonstrated greater overall planar strain due to the observed \"toe-in\" laxity around neutral loading while the TL-HEX, with ball-and-socket universal joints, demonstrated a minimal level of laxity. Beyond the initial deformation due to the preloaded laxity, both hexapod frames responded to loading in a similar manner. There were significant differences in the frames' mechanical behaviour under different loading conditions but further research is required to determine whether these translate <i>in vivo</i> into clinical significance.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>Fenton C, Henderson D, Samchukov M, <i>et al.</i> Comparative Stiffness Characteristics of Ilizarov- and Hexapod-type External Frame Constructs. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2021;16(3):138-143.</p>","PeriodicalId":21979,"journal":{"name":"Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c8/d4/stlr-16-138.PMC8778724.pdf","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10080-1539","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Background: The Ilizarov method and fixator are clinically recognised for the treatment of fractures, limb salvage and deformity correction. There have been extensive studies determining the basic mechanism for fracture healing using this technique. It is generally accepted that circular frames optimise the mechanical environment by reducing shear strain across the fracture while maintaining axial micromotion so as to promote fracture healing. There have been several new hexapod-type frames introduced into the market over the past 20 years with little comparative research into their biomechanical properties and resultant effects on the fracture environment.

Questions/purposes: To investigate the biomechanical behaviours of the TrueLok-Hex (TL-HEX) and Taylor spatial frame (TSF) hexapod-type circular external fixators with comparison to traditional Ilizarov-type (TL-Ilizarov and TSF-Ilizarov) constructs and potential performance in vivo.

Methods: Testing was performed on standardised four-ring TSF and TL-HEX constructs matched by identical frames using Ilizarov threaded rod constructs for each set of components. All frames were tested under physiological levels of axial, bending and torsional loading. Load-deformation properties for each construct under each mode of loading were calculated and analysed statistically using ANOVA.

Results: Under axial loading, the Ilizarov construct utilising TL-HEX components demonstrated the greatest rigidity followed by the Ilizarov construct using TSF components. Under bending loads, the difference in rigidity between constructs was similar but less marked. Under torsional loading, both hexapod frames were seen to be significantly more rigid than the Ilizarov constructs. Overall deformation around neutral loading was much higher in the TSF frame due to an observed significant "toe-in" laxity in the strut universal joints. The remaining deformation of both hexapod frames was similar with a higher level of TL-HEX rigidity in axial loading and a higher level of TSF rigidity in bending and torsion.

Conclusion: In conclusion, both hexapod frame constructs were less rigid under axial loading but more rigid under bending and torsional loads than their comparative Ilizarov constructs. As a result of their Cardan universal joints, the TSF demonstrated greater overall planar strain due to the observed "toe-in" laxity around neutral loading while the TL-HEX, with ball-and-socket universal joints, demonstrated a minimal level of laxity. Beyond the initial deformation due to the preloaded laxity, both hexapod frames responded to loading in a similar manner. There were significant differences in the frames' mechanical behaviour under different loading conditions but further research is required to determine whether these translate in vivo into clinical significance.

How to cite this article: Fenton C, Henderson D, Samchukov M, et al. Comparative Stiffness Characteristics of Ilizarov- and Hexapod-type External Frame Constructs. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2021;16(3):138-143.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ilizarov型和六足型外框架结构的比较刚度特性。
背景:Ilizarov方法和固定架是临床公认的治疗骨折、肢体保留和畸形矫正的方法。已有广泛的研究确定了使用该技术骨折愈合的基本机制。人们普遍认为,圆形框架通过减少骨折处的剪切应变,同时保持轴向微运动来优化机械环境,从而促进骨折愈合。在过去的20年里,市场上出现了几种新的六足框架,但很少有关于它们的生物力学性能和对骨折环境的影响的比较研究。问题/目的:研究truelock - hex (TL-HEX)和Taylor空间框架(TSF)六足型圆形外固定架的生物力学行为,并与传统ilizarov型(TL-Ilizarov和TSF- ilizarov)结构进行比较,以及在体内的潜在性能。方法:采用标准化的四环TSF和TL-HEX结构进行测试,每组组件采用相同的框架,使用Ilizarov螺纹杆结构。所有框架都在生理水平的轴向、弯曲和扭转载荷下进行了测试。每个结构在每种荷载模式下的荷载-变形特性采用方差分析进行了计算和统计分析。结果:在轴向载荷下,使用TL-HEX组件的Ilizarov构建体显示出最大的刚度,其次是使用TSF组件的Ilizarov构建体。在弯曲荷载下,结构之间的刚度差异相似,但不太明显。在扭转载荷下,两种六足框架明显比Ilizarov结构更刚性。在TSF框架中,由于在支柱万向节中观察到显著的“脚趾”松弛,因此中性加载周围的整体变形要高得多。两种六足框架的剩余变形相似,轴向加载时TL-HEX刚度水平较高,弯曲和扭转时TSF刚度水平较高。结论:与Ilizarov结构相比,两种六足架结构在轴向载荷下的刚性较低,而在弯曲和扭转载荷下的刚性较高。由于采用了Cardan万向节,TSF表现出更大的整体平面应变,这是由于在中性载荷周围观察到的“脚趾”松弛,而TL-HEX采用球窝万向节,表现出最小的松弛程度。除了预加载松弛引起的初始变形外,两个六足框架对加载的响应方式相似。在不同的载荷条件下,框架的力学行为有显著的差异,但需要进一步的研究来确定这些是否在体内转化为临床意义。引用方式:Fenton C, Henderson D, Samchukov M,等。Ilizarov型和六足型外框架结构的比较刚度特性。创伤肢体重建2021;16(3):138-143。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction
Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Strategies in Trauma and Limb Reconstruction is dedicated to surgeons, allied medical professionals and researchers in the field of orthopaedics and trauma. The scope of the journal is to discuss the fields of skeletal injury, and the complications thereof, congenital and acquired limb deformities and deficiencies, and orthopaedic-related infection, together with their surgical and non-surgical treatments. The journal publishes original articles, reviews, case reports, descriptions of new or recognised treatment techniques, forum discussions of clinical scenarios and relevant correspondence. It aims to provide a widely accessible source of useful information to practitioners in the field through the problem- or technique-based approach of published articles.
期刊最新文献
A Novel Surgical Technique for Extraction of a Firmly Integrated Broken Intramedullary Nail. Distal Forearm Replantation in a Child: A Case Report with a 30-year Follow-up. Investigating the Growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Its Influence on Osteolysis in Human Bone: An In Vitro Study. Measurement of Wire Deflection on Loading may Indicate Union in Ilizarov Constructs: A Pilot Study. Comparative Stiffness Characteristics of Ilizarov- and Hexapod-type External Frame Constructs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1