四块导向生长板的生物力学

IF 0.2 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS
N. Wilson, A. Litsky, C. Iobst
{"title":"四块导向生长板的生物力学","authors":"N. Wilson, A. Litsky, C. Iobst","doi":"10.1097/BCO.0000000000001217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Guided growth using the eight-plate is the most common method to correct angular deformities in children. We compared the properties of four plate constructs (two-hole guided-growth plates, four-hole guided-growth plates, locking guided-growth plates, and one-third tubular plates) using a three-point bending model. Methods: A three-point bending model was constructed to test strength of four plates. An osteotomy was made in a Sawbones Cylinder. The plate was then fixed across the osteotomy site using the appropriate screws designed for the plate. A 5 N preload was applied, and a linearly applied force was applied under displacement control. Constructs were loaded to failure. Results: For an angular correction of 8.5 degrees, the four-hole guided-growth plates required the most force (40.9 N) followed by two-hole guided-growth plates (36.6 N). Locking plates and one-third tubular plates required less force to achieve the same correction (28.0 N and 23.0 N P<0.001), respectively. The four-hole plate was the stiffest construct (1.87 N/mm). Load to failure for the four-hole plates (46.0 N), two-hole plates (42.8 N). locking plates (32.1 N), and one-third tubular plates (25.5 P<0.001) followed similar trends as the force required for angular correction, with the four-hole plate requiring the most force. Conclusions: Despite the addition of two extra screws in the four-hole plate, this construct was only 10% stiffer than the two-hole plate. There is limited benefit to the use of a four-hole plate over a two-hole plate. The one-third tubular plate had the lowest load to failure of the four tested constructs. Level of Evidence: NA (biomechanical)","PeriodicalId":10732,"journal":{"name":"Current Orthopaedic Practice","volume":"34 1","pages":"236 - 239"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The biomechanics of four guided growth plates\",\"authors\":\"N. Wilson, A. Litsky, C. Iobst\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BCO.0000000000001217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Guided growth using the eight-plate is the most common method to correct angular deformities in children. We compared the properties of four plate constructs (two-hole guided-growth plates, four-hole guided-growth plates, locking guided-growth plates, and one-third tubular plates) using a three-point bending model. Methods: A three-point bending model was constructed to test strength of four plates. An osteotomy was made in a Sawbones Cylinder. The plate was then fixed across the osteotomy site using the appropriate screws designed for the plate. A 5 N preload was applied, and a linearly applied force was applied under displacement control. Constructs were loaded to failure. Results: For an angular correction of 8.5 degrees, the four-hole guided-growth plates required the most force (40.9 N) followed by two-hole guided-growth plates (36.6 N). Locking plates and one-third tubular plates required less force to achieve the same correction (28.0 N and 23.0 N P<0.001), respectively. The four-hole plate was the stiffest construct (1.87 N/mm). Load to failure for the four-hole plates (46.0 N), two-hole plates (42.8 N). locking plates (32.1 N), and one-third tubular plates (25.5 P<0.001) followed similar trends as the force required for angular correction, with the four-hole plate requiring the most force. Conclusions: Despite the addition of two extra screws in the four-hole plate, this construct was only 10% stiffer than the two-hole plate. There is limited benefit to the use of a four-hole plate over a two-hole plate. The one-third tubular plate had the lowest load to failure of the four tested constructs. Level of Evidence: NA (biomechanical)\",\"PeriodicalId\":10732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Orthopaedic Practice\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"236 - 239\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Orthopaedic Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BCO.0000000000001217\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Orthopaedic Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BCO.0000000000001217","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:八夹板引导生长是矫正儿童角畸形最常见的方法。我们使用三点弯曲模型比较了四种板结构(两孔导向生长板、四孔导向生长盘、锁定导向生长板和三分之一管状板)的性能。方法:建立三点弯曲模型,对四块钢板进行强度测试。在Sawbones圆柱体中进行了截骨术。然后使用为钢板设计的合适螺钉将钢板固定在截骨部位。施加5N的预载荷,并且在位移控制下施加线性施加的力。构造加载失败。结果:对于8.5度的角度校正,四个孔引导生长板需要最大的力(40.9N),其次是两个孔引导的生长板(36.6N)。锁定板和三分之一管状板需要较小的力来实现相同的校正(分别为28.0 N和23.0 N P<0.001)。四孔板是最硬的结构(1.87N/mm)。四孔板(46.0 N)、两孔板(42.8 N)的失效荷载。锁定板(32.1N)和三分之一管状板(25.5P<0.001)遵循与角度校正所需力相似的趋势,其中四孔板需要最大的力。结论:尽管在四孔板中增加了两个额外的螺钉,但这种结构的刚度仅比两孔板高10%。与双孔板相比,使用四孔板的益处有限。在四种测试结构中,三分之一的管状板具有最低的失效载荷。证据级别:NA(生物力学)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The biomechanics of four guided growth plates
Background: Guided growth using the eight-plate is the most common method to correct angular deformities in children. We compared the properties of four plate constructs (two-hole guided-growth plates, four-hole guided-growth plates, locking guided-growth plates, and one-third tubular plates) using a three-point bending model. Methods: A three-point bending model was constructed to test strength of four plates. An osteotomy was made in a Sawbones Cylinder. The plate was then fixed across the osteotomy site using the appropriate screws designed for the plate. A 5 N preload was applied, and a linearly applied force was applied under displacement control. Constructs were loaded to failure. Results: For an angular correction of 8.5 degrees, the four-hole guided-growth plates required the most force (40.9 N) followed by two-hole guided-growth plates (36.6 N). Locking plates and one-third tubular plates required less force to achieve the same correction (28.0 N and 23.0 N P<0.001), respectively. The four-hole plate was the stiffest construct (1.87 N/mm). Load to failure for the four-hole plates (46.0 N), two-hole plates (42.8 N). locking plates (32.1 N), and one-third tubular plates (25.5 P<0.001) followed similar trends as the force required for angular correction, with the four-hole plate requiring the most force. Conclusions: Despite the addition of two extra screws in the four-hole plate, this construct was only 10% stiffer than the two-hole plate. There is limited benefit to the use of a four-hole plate over a two-hole plate. The one-third tubular plate had the lowest load to failure of the four tested constructs. Level of Evidence: NA (biomechanical)
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
107
期刊介绍: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Current Orthopaedic Practice is a peer-reviewed, general orthopaedic journal that translates clinical research into best practices for diagnosing, treating, and managing musculoskeletal disorders. The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical research, invited special focus reviews and general reviews, as well as original articles on innovations in practice, case reports, point/counterpoint, and diagnostic imaging.
×
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