A Mechanical Comparison of 4.5 mm Narrow and 3.5 mm Broad Plating Systems for Stabilization of Gapped Fracture Models
To evaluate and compare the mechanical properties of 4.5 narrow and 3.5 broad plating systems using their respective cortical and cancellous screws in unstable, central, and eccentric gap fracture models. Study Design
Mechanical evaluation and comparison of 2 dynamic compression plate (DCP) systems. Sample population
Eighteen cortical and 30 cancellous gapped fracture models. Methods
DCP (4.5 mm narrow, 3.5 mm broad) with their respective cortical screws were applied to cortical bone density polyurethane foam blocks to construct center gap cortical fracture models that were tested in gap closing monotonic 4-point bending. DCP (4.5 mm narrow, 3.5 mm broad) with their respective cancellous screws were applied to cancellous bone density polyurethane foam blocks to construct eccentric gap cancellous fracture models. The cancellous constructs were tested in monotonic gap opening and gap closing cantilever bending and in cyclic axial loading. Univariate and multivariate repeated measures ANOVA were used to compare the maximum loads at failure of the 4.5 mm constructs and 3.5 mm constructs. Results
The 4.5 mm narrow plating system withstood significantly higher loads at failure than the 3.5 mm broad plating system in 4-point bending (P<.0001) and gap opening cantilever bending (P<.0001). The 4.5 mm system failed in gap closing cantilever bending by plastic deformation of the plate, whereas the 3.5 mm system failed by screw pullout. There was no difference between the 2 systems in cyclic axial loading. Conclusion
Results indicate that the 4.5 mm narrow plating system has a mechanical advantage over the 3.5 mm broad plating system for stabilization of gapped fracture models. Clinical Relevance
The 4.5 mm narrow plating system may be mechanically advantageous compared with the 3.5 mm broad plating system for stabilizing unreconstructed comminuted long bone fractures in large dogs.
Document Type: Research Article
Affiliations: From Indianapolis Veterinary Specialists, Indianapolis, IN; the Departments of Veterinary Clinical Medicine and Veterinary Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL; and the Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Publication date: 2004-03-01