Experimental model for controlling shear using the Ilizarov frame

Jabbar, Yaser; Khaleel, A.

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.06.017

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The tail of the polyaxial pedicle screw and the lamina hook were adjusted to ensure vertical placement of ACCSR at the broken end, and ACCSR was plying-up with pedicle screws and laminar hooks to achieve optimal fixation. [ 36 ] Subsequently, the pedicle screw and the nuts on the lamina hook were secured onto the sleeves on both sides. Using a wrench, the screw rod was rotated to achieve precise coaxial compression.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and biomechanical analysis of an axially controlled compression spinal rod for lumbar spondylolysis

Li,

Tang,

Feng

et al. 2024

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To elucidate the differences in mechanical performance between a novel axially controlled compression spinal rod (ACCSR) for lumbar spondylolysis (LS) and the common spinal rod (CSR). Methods: A total of 36 ACCSRs and 36 CSRs from the same batch were used in this study, each with a diameter of 6.0 mm. Biomechanical tests were carried out on spinal rods for the ACCSR group and on pedicle screw-rod internal fixation systems for the CSR group. The spinal rod tests were conducted following the guidelines outlined in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F 2193, while the pedicle screw-rod internal fixation system tests adhered to ASTM F 1798-97 standards. Results: The stiffness of ACCSR and CSR was 1559.15 ± 50.15 and 3788.86 ± 156.45 N/mm (P < .001). ACCSR’s yield load was 1345.73 (1297.90–1359.97) N, whereas CSR’s was 4046.83 (3805.8–4072.53) N (P = .002). ACCSR’s load in the 2.5 millionth cycle of the fatigue four-point bending test was 320 N. The axial gripping capacity of ACCSR and CSR was 1632.53 ± 165.64 and 1273.62 ± 205.63 N (P = .004). ACCSR’s torsional gripping capacity was 3.45 (3.23–3.47) Nm, while CSR’s was 3.27 (3.07–3.59) Nm (P = .654). The stiffness of the pedicle screws of the ACCSR and CSR group was 783.83 (775.67–798.94) and 773.14 (758.70–783.62) N/mm (P = .085). The yield loads on the pedicle screws of the ACCSR and CSR group was 1345.73 (1297.90–1359.97) and 4046.83 (3805.8–4072.53) N (P = .099). Conclusion: Although ACCSR exhibited lower yield load, stiffness, and fatigue resistance compared to CSR, it demonstrated significantly higher axial gripping capacity and met the stress requirement of the human isthmus. Consequently, ACCSR presents a promising alternative to CSR for LS remediation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and biomechanical analysis of an axially controlled compression spinal rod for lumbar spondylolysis

Li,

Tang,

Feng

et al. 2024

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The threaded part of the pin utilized for medial malleolus fixation in this study increased the friction to the bone, which composed a stronger fixation with the combination of compression offered by olive wire. A biomechanical study proved that, by applying olive wire, the control power of shear motion at the fracture site of an oblique fracture could be strengthened [ 47 ]. Additionally, the wires were further reinforced by being fixed to the fixator's rings and tensioned [ 44 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects and Anti-rotation Stabilization of the Non-bridging External Fixation for Pronation-Abduction Stage III Ankle Fracture: A Cadaveric Study

Chen

Huang

Cheng

et al. 2021

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. This study is aimed at providing a nonbridging external fixation technique with pinning fixation for the pronation-abduction stage III ankle fracture. The secondary purpose was to evaluate its effect on anatomic reduction and fracture fragment stability against cadaveric models’ rotation. Method. A paired design study was conducted using 14 pairs of the cadaveric model which had been modeled for pronation-abduction stage III ankle fracture. One fracture model from each pair was randomly allocated to receive an open reduction and internal fixation, while the other was reduced and stabilized with the external fixation technique. After the surgery, the antirotational stability tests were performed with external rotation torques of 10 nm, 15 nm, and 20 nm applied, respectively. The postoperation reduction rate and ankle parameters were recorded in anteroposterior and lateral radiographs before and after the antirotational stability experiment. Result. The outcomes were assessed according to Burwell-Charnley’s radiographic criteria of reduction. It showed no statistically significant differences in reduction between the two groups ( P < 0.05 ). The displacement of lateral fragment following a reduction in the external fixation group was significantly larger than that of the internal fixation group ( 3.14 ± 0.56 vs. 1.49 ± 0.39 , P < 0.05 ). After applying rotational torques of 10 nm, 15 nm, and 20 nm, the results of other parameters showed no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion. This nonbridging external fixation method with pin fixation of fracture fragments might have the same effect as that of internal fixation on the reduction rate of pronation-abduction stage III ankle fracture.

show abstract