Measurements of Stability of Crural Fractures Treated with Hoffmann Osteotaxis: 2.<i>Measurements on Crural Fractures</i>

Jørgensen, Torben Ejsing

doi:10.3109/17453677208991258

Cited by 39 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This has been used for the early detection of pseudarthrosis and also to decide the best time to dynamise the fixator and then to remove it. Other authors have established the level of 15 Nm/°as the minimal stiffness which will allow safe removal of the external fixator in human tibial fractures, and 20 Nm/°in femoral fractures [12,14,15,20]. Nevertheless, the value of stiffness is not the only criteria to allow fixator removal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mechanical analysis of the healing of different osteotomies fixed externally

Mora

Forriol

2000

International Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under standard conditions the left tibia was osteotomised in nine sheep. The osteotomy was transverse in six, and oblique in three. The osteotomies were fixated using a strain-gauge-monitored unilateral external fixator. The fixation was rigid in three sheep with a transverse osteotomy (group 1) and also in three sheep with an oblique osteotomy (group 2). The fixation was dynamic in three sheep with a transverse osteotomy (group 3) using a roller-bearing mechanism allowing 1 mm of axial displacement. The bone callus stiffness increased progressively with time. One month after osteotomy the load force through the fixator in groups 1 and 2 was more than 20%, whereas the equivalent load force in group 3 was only about 5%.Résumé Avec un fixateur monolatéral instrumenté avec des jauges extensiométriques (strain gauges) on a étudié l'évolution des forces qui passent par le fixateur et la rigidité du cal de fracture chez neuf agneaux ayant trois types d'ostéotomies du tibia et des fixations différentes (I: ostéotomie transversale avec fixation rigide; II: osté-otomie oblique avec fixation rigide; III: ostéotomie transversale avec fixation dynamique. La rigidité du cal de fracture augmente progressivement dans les trois groupes alors que les forces qui passent par le fixateur diminuent. Après un mois, chez tous les animaux ayant un traitement rigide (groupe I et II) les forces qui passent par le fixateur sont supérieures à 20%, alors que dans le groupe III, à la même période, les forces moment sont approximativement de 5%.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several authors have shown that measuring deflection under the load force of an external fixation frame can monitor the healing of a bone fracture [2][3][4]6], and strain-gauge-monitored external fixators have been used to assess the 'stiffness' of fracture union [4,6,[14][15][16]20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical analysis of the healing of different osteotomies fixed externally

Mora

Forriol

2000

International Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In indirect testing fracture stiffness is measured by using strain-gauge units attached to external fixators to measure the strain in the fixator column [ 57 ]. Jorgensen measured fracture bending at a known amount of load in tibial fractures [ 61 ]. Richardson et al noted that this method provides only indirect measurement of changes in stress in the fixator as the fracture heals; however, there are currently methods available to measure absolute values of stiffness using the same system [ 57 , 62 , 63 ].…”

Section: Measures Of Healingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Options for Determining Fracture Union

Morshed

2014

Advances in Medicine

163

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determining whether a bone fracture is healed is one of the most important and fundamental clinical determinations made in orthopaedics. However, there are currently no standardized methods of assessing fracture union, which in turn has created significant disagreement among orthopaedic surgeons in both clinical and research settings. An extensive amount of research has been dedicated to finding novel and reliable ways of determining healing with some promising results. Recent advancements in imaging techniques and introduction of new radiographic scores have helped decrease the amount of disagreement on this topic among physicians. The knowledge gained from biomechanical studies of bone healing has helped us refine our tools and create more efficient and practical research instruments. Additionally, a deeper understanding of the molecular pathways involved in the bone healing process has led to emergence of serologic markers as possible candidates in assessment of fracture union. In addition to our current physician centered methods, patient-centered approaches assessing quality of life and function are gaining popularity in assessment of fracture union. Despite these advances, assessment of union remains an imperfect practice in the clinical setting. Therefore, clinicians need to draw on multiple modalities that directly and indirectly measure or correlate with bone healing when counseling patients.

show abstract

“…Several methods of fracture stiffness measurements under external fixation have been reported by several groups [3,4,5,6,7]. The principle of this measurement is based on an applied load which is transmitted through the fixator and the bone healing region.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%