Ex vivo biomechanical comparison of pin fixation techniques for canine distal femoral physeal fractures

• Published in: Veterinary surgery 1997-09, Vol.26 (5), p.398-407
• Main Authors: Sukhiani, H.R. (University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.), Holmberg, D.L
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animals; Biomechanical Phenomena; Bone Nails - veterinary; Cadaver; CHIEN; DEFORMATION; DOGS; Dogs - injuries; Dogs - surgery; ESTABILIDAD; Femoral Fractures - diagnostic imaging; Femoral Fractures - surgery; Femoral Fractures - veterinary; FEMUR; Femur - injuries; Femur - physiology; Femur - surgery; FIJACION DE FRACTURAS; FRACTURAS; FRACTURE; FRACTURE FIXATION; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - veterinary; FRACTURES; HUESOS DE LOS MIEMBROS; Internal Fixators - veterinary; LIMB BONES; MALFORMACION; MALFORMATION; MALFORMATIONS; OS DES MEMBRES; OSTEOSYNTHESE; PERRO; Radiography; RESISTANCE MECANIQUE; RESISTENCIA MECANICA; STABILITE; STABILITY; STRENGTH; TORSIONAL STRENGTH
• ISSN: 0161-3499; 1532-950X
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-950X.1997.tb01700.x

Objective—To compare the biomechanical properties of five intramedullary (IM) pin fixation techniques for Salter‐Harris type I fractures of the distal femur in dogs. Study Design—Randomized, one‐way factorial design composed of five treatment groups: (1) single IM pin, (2) dynamic IM crossed pins, (3) paired convergent pins, (4) crossed pins, and (5) crossed polyglycolic acid (PGA) rods. Sample Population—Forty pairs of cadaver canine femurs. Materials—One femur of each pair was manually fractured and subsequently repaired; the contralateral intact femur served as its control. Each femur was loaded in torsion until failure occurred and load‐deformation curves were generated. Results—The crossed‐pin technique sustained the greatest load to failure (116.8%) followed by the paired convergent pins (104.8%), dynamic IM pins (90.6%), single IM pin (72.1%), and crossed PGA rods (71.9%). Statistically significant differences in strength at failure were detected between the crossed‐pin and single IM pin and the crossed‐pin and crossed PGA rod techniques. All fixation techniques underwent greater deformation (1.5 times as much) and had a lower stiffness (66% to 75%) compared with the intact controls; however, there was no significant difference between techniques. Failure in the paired convergent and crossed‐pin techniques occurred by fracture of the bone; failure in the other techniques occurred by distraction at the fracture site. Conclusion—The rotational stability of any of the fixation techniques appears to be primarily determined by the ability to prevent distraction and maintain interdigitation of the physis. Clinical Relevance—When choosing a particular fixation technique for repair of a distal femoral physeal fracture, consideration should be given to the technique's relative biomechanical merits.