Author:
Zhao Xinwen,Jing Wensen,Yun Zhe,Tong Xun,Li Zhao,Yu Jiajia,Zhang Yaohui,Zhang Yabin,Wang Zhixue,Wen Yanhua,Cai Heping,Wang Jun,Ma Baoan,Zhao Haien
Abstract
Abstract
Background
In orthopedic application, stress-shielding effects of implant materials cause bone loss, which often induces porosis, delayed bone healing, and other complications. We aimed to compare the stress-shielding effects of locked compression plate (LCP) and limited-contact dynamic compression plate (LC-DCP) in dogs with plate-fixed femurs.
Methods
Bilateral intact femurs of 24 adult dogs were fixed by adult forearm 9-hole titanium plates using minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPPO) technology, with LCP on the left and LC-DCP on the right femurs. Dogs were sacrificed at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks after surgery, and bone specimens were used to evaluate the efficacies of different fixing methods on bones through X-ray, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), histology, MicroCT, and biomechanics analyses.
Results
X-ray results showed significant callus formation and periosteal reaction in the LC-DCP group. Bone cell morphology, degree of osteoporosis, and bone mineral density (BMD) changes of the LCP group were significantly better than that of the LC-DCP group. MicroCT results showed that the LCP group had significantly reduced degree of cortical bone osteoporosis than the LC-DCP group. Tissue mineral density (TMD) in the LCP group was higher than that in the LC-DCP group at different time points (6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks). Biomechanics analyses demonstrated that the compressive strength and flexural strength of bones fixed by LCP were better than that by LC-DCP.
Conclusions
Stress-shielding effects of LCP are significantly weaker than that of LC-DCP, which is beneficial to new bone formation and fracture healing, and LCP can be widely used in clinic for fracture fixation.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery
Reference28 articles.
1. Uhthoff HK, Poitras P, Backman DS. Internal plate fixation of fractures: short history and recent developments. J Orthop Sci. 2006;11:118–26.
2. Beltran MJ, Collinge CA, Gardner MJ. Stress modulation of fracture fixation implants. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24:711–9.
3. Konstantinidis L, Schmidt B, Bernstein A, Hirschmüller A, Schröter S, Südkamp NP, et al. Plate fixation of periprosthetic femur fractures: what happens to the cement mantle? Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2017;231:138–42.
4. Uhthoff HK, Foux A, Yeadon A, McAuley J, Black RC. Two processes of bone remodeling in plated intact femora: an experimental study in dogs. J Orthop Res. 1993;11:78–91.
5. Perren SM, Regazzoni P, Fernandez AA. Biomechanical and biological aspects of defect treatment in fractures using helical plates. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2014;81:267–71.
Cited by
10 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献