Analysis of strategies to increase external fixator stiffness: Is double stacking worth the cost?

作者:Strebe Sara; Kim Hyunchul; Russell Joseph P; Hsieh Adam H; Nascone Jason; O'Toole Robert V*
来源:Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured, 2014, 45(7): 1049-1053.
DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2013.11.013

摘要

We compared the mechanical benefits and costs of 3 strategies that are commonly used to increase knee-spanning external fixator stiffness (resistance to deformation): double stacking, cross-linking, and use of an oblique pin. At our academic trauma centre and biomechanical testing laboratory, we used ultra-high-molecular- weight polyethylene bone models and commercially available external fixator components to simulate knee-spanning external fixation. The models were tested in anterior-posterior bending, medial-lateral bending, axial compression, and torsion. We recorded the construct stiffness for each strategy in all loading modes and assessed a secondary outcome of cost per 10% increase in stiffness. Double stacking significantly increased construct stiffness under anterior-posterior bending (109%), medial-lateral bending (22%), axial compression (150%), and torsion (41%) (p < 0.05). Use of an oblique pin significantly increased stiffness under torsion (25%) (p < 0.006). Cross-linking significantly increased stiffness only under torsion (29%) (p < 0.002). Double stacking increased costs by 84%, cross-linking by 28%, and use of an oblique pin by 15% relative to a standard fixator. All 3 strategies increased stiffness under torsion to varying degrees, but only double stacking increased stiffness in all 4 testing modalities (p < 0.05). Double stacking is most effective in increasing resistance to bending, particularly under anterior-posterior bending and axial compression, but requires a relatively high cost increase. Clinicians can use these data to help guide the most cost-effective strategy to increase construct stiffness based on the plane in which stiffness is needed.

  • 出版日期2014-7