肩胛骨骨折:骨模型上三种张力带接线固定方法的生物力学比较。

IF 1.6 4区 医学
Emre Calisal, Levent Uğur
{"title":"肩胛骨骨折:骨模型上三种张力带接线固定方法的生物力学比较。","authors":"Emre Calisal, Levent Uğur","doi":"10.1177/10225536231223109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare the biomechanical pull-out strength of the three different tension band wiring (TBW) methods employed to fix transverse olecranon fractures on bone models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three different fixation models were created in groups of seven synthetic olecranon fractured bone models. The first technique was fixed the olecranon with the traditional TBW method. The second technique was fixed the olecranon with a large intramedullary screw TBW method. The third technique was fixed the olecranon with the double-screw TBW method. The pull-out force needed for the failure of each specimen under the tensile test device was evaluated, and the results were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that the lowest average pull out strength was 55.10 N (range: 35.87-65.85 ± 10.17) in the traditional TBW method, the highest pull out strength was 84.28 N (range: 63.67-117 ± 18.87) in the double-screw TBW method. The pull out strength was 70.80 N (range: 52.60-80.95 ± 10.18) in the intramedullary screw TBW method. In terms of ultimate failure loads, there was no significant difference between the intramedullary screw TBW and the double-screw TBW (<i>p</i> > .05) while there was a significant difference between the traditional TBW and the other two methods (<i>p</i> < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of screw(s) shows higher biomechanical stability than K-wires in the TBW method. Double-screws fixation gives similar results in terms of the biomechanical load to failure compared to a large intramedullary screw fixation. Both screw methods can be used as stable constructs in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III, biomechanical trial.</p>","PeriodicalId":16608,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery","volume":"31 3","pages":"10225536231223109"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Olecranon fractures: A biomechanical comparison of three tension band wiring fixation methods on bone models.\",\"authors\":\"Emre Calisal, Levent Uğur\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10225536231223109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to compare the biomechanical pull-out strength of the three different tension band wiring (TBW) methods employed to fix transverse olecranon fractures on bone models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three different fixation models were created in groups of seven synthetic olecranon fractured bone models. The first technique was fixed the olecranon with the traditional TBW method. The second technique was fixed the olecranon with a large intramedullary screw TBW method. The third technique was fixed the olecranon with the double-screw TBW method. The pull-out force needed for the failure of each specimen under the tensile test device was evaluated, and the results were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that the lowest average pull out strength was 55.10 N (range: 35.87-65.85 ± 10.17) in the traditional TBW method, the highest pull out strength was 84.28 N (range: 63.67-117 ± 18.87) in the double-screw TBW method. The pull out strength was 70.80 N (range: 52.60-80.95 ± 10.18) in the intramedullary screw TBW method. In terms of ultimate failure loads, there was no significant difference between the intramedullary screw TBW and the double-screw TBW (<i>p</i> > .05) while there was a significant difference between the traditional TBW and the other two methods (<i>p</i> < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of screw(s) shows higher biomechanical stability than K-wires in the TBW method. Double-screws fixation gives similar results in terms of the biomechanical load to failure compared to a large intramedullary screw fixation. Both screw methods can be used as stable constructs in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III, biomechanical trial.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16608,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"31 3\",\"pages\":\"10225536231223109\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10225536231223109\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10225536231223109","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在比较三种不同的张力带接线(TBW)方法在骨模型上固定横向肩胛骨骨折时的生物力学拔出强度:方法:在七个合成肩胛骨骨折骨模型中创建了三种不同的固定模型。第一种技术是用传统的 TBW 方法固定肩胛骨。第二种技术是用大髓内螺钉 TBW 法固定肩胛骨。第三种技术是用双螺钉 TBW 法固定肩胛骨。我们评估了每个试样在拉伸试验装置下失效所需的拔出力,并记录了结果:我们发现,传统 TBW 法的平均拉出强度最低,为 55.10 N(范围:35.87-65.85 ± 10.17);双螺旋 TBW 法的拉出强度最高,为 84.28 N(范围:63.67-117 ± 18.87)。髓内螺钉 TBW 法的拔出强度为 70.80 N(范围:52.60-80.95 ± 10.18)。在极限破坏载荷方面,髓内螺钉 TBW 和双螺钉 TBW 没有显著差异(P > .05),而传统 TBW 和其他两种方法有显著差异(P < .05):结论:在 TBW 方法中,使用螺钉比使用 K 线显示出更高的生物力学稳定性。与大髓内螺钉固定相比,双螺钉固定在生物力学破坏载荷方面具有相似的结果。在临床实践中,这两种螺钉固定方法都可用作稳定的结构:证据等级:III,生物力学试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Olecranon fractures: A biomechanical comparison of three tension band wiring fixation methods on bone models.

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the biomechanical pull-out strength of the three different tension band wiring (TBW) methods employed to fix transverse olecranon fractures on bone models.

Methods: Three different fixation models were created in groups of seven synthetic olecranon fractured bone models. The first technique was fixed the olecranon with the traditional TBW method. The second technique was fixed the olecranon with a large intramedullary screw TBW method. The third technique was fixed the olecranon with the double-screw TBW method. The pull-out force needed for the failure of each specimen under the tensile test device was evaluated, and the results were recorded.

Results: We found that the lowest average pull out strength was 55.10 N (range: 35.87-65.85 ± 10.17) in the traditional TBW method, the highest pull out strength was 84.28 N (range: 63.67-117 ± 18.87) in the double-screw TBW method. The pull out strength was 70.80 N (range: 52.60-80.95 ± 10.18) in the intramedullary screw TBW method. In terms of ultimate failure loads, there was no significant difference between the intramedullary screw TBW and the double-screw TBW (p > .05) while there was a significant difference between the traditional TBW and the other two methods (p < .05).

Conclusion: The use of screw(s) shows higher biomechanical stability than K-wires in the TBW method. Double-screws fixation gives similar results in terms of the biomechanical load to failure compared to a large intramedullary screw fixation. Both screw methods can be used as stable constructs in clinical practice.

Level of evidence: III, biomechanical trial.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery is an open access peer-reviewed journal publishing original reviews and research articles on all aspects of orthopaedic surgery. It is the official journal of the Asia Pacific Orthopaedic Association. The journal welcomes and will publish materials of a diverse nature, from basic science research to clinical trials and surgical techniques. The journal encourages contributions from all parts of the world, but special emphasis is given to research of particular relevance to the Asia Pacific region.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信