Biomechanical Analysis of Two Types of Humerus Supracondylar Fracture Fixation in Anatomical Model
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-36162019000300261 |
Resumo: | Abstract Objective To analyze the stability of humerus supracondylar fracture fixation with Kirschner wires comparing intramedullary and lateral (Fi), and two parallel lateral wires (FL) fixation in experimental models, to define which configuration presents greater stability. Methods A total of 72 synthetic humeri were cross-sectioned to simulate the fracture. These bones were divided into two equal groups and the fractures were fixed with parallel Kirschner wires (FL) and with a lateral and intramedullary (Fi) wire. Then, the test specimens were subjected to stress load tests on a universal test machine, measured in Newtons (N). Each group was subdivided into varus load, valgus, extension, flexion, external rotation and internal rotation. An analysis of the data was performed comparing the subgroups of the FL group with their respective subgroups of the Fi group through the two-tailed t test. Results The two-tailed t test showed that in 4 of the 6 evaluated conditions there was no significant statistical difference between the groups (p > 0.05). We have found a significant difference between the group with extension load with a mean of 19 N (FL group) and of 28.7 N (Fi group) (p = 0.004), and also between the groups with flexural load with themean of the forces recorded in the FL group of 17.1 N and of 22.9 N in the Fi group (p = 0.01). Conclusion Fixation with one intramedullary wire and one lateral wire, considering loads in extension and flexion, presents greater stability when compared to a fixation with two lateral wires, suggesting similar clinical results. |
id |
SBOT-2_9db238e31b77c6053ddb67358c215f90 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S0102-36162019000300261 |
network_acronym_str |
SBOT-2 |
network_name_str |
Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Biomechanical Analysis of Two Types of Humerus Supracondylar Fracture Fixation in Anatomical Modelbiomechanical phenomenaepiphyses/injuriesfracture fixationhumeral fracturesAbstract Objective To analyze the stability of humerus supracondylar fracture fixation with Kirschner wires comparing intramedullary and lateral (Fi), and two parallel lateral wires (FL) fixation in experimental models, to define which configuration presents greater stability. Methods A total of 72 synthetic humeri were cross-sectioned to simulate the fracture. These bones were divided into two equal groups and the fractures were fixed with parallel Kirschner wires (FL) and with a lateral and intramedullary (Fi) wire. Then, the test specimens were subjected to stress load tests on a universal test machine, measured in Newtons (N). Each group was subdivided into varus load, valgus, extension, flexion, external rotation and internal rotation. An analysis of the data was performed comparing the subgroups of the FL group with their respective subgroups of the Fi group through the two-tailed t test. Results The two-tailed t test showed that in 4 of the 6 evaluated conditions there was no significant statistical difference between the groups (p > 0.05). We have found a significant difference between the group with extension load with a mean of 19 N (FL group) and of 28.7 N (Fi group) (p = 0.004), and also between the groups with flexural load with themean of the forces recorded in the FL group of 17.1 N and of 22.9 N in the Fi group (p = 0.01). Conclusion Fixation with one intramedullary wire and one lateral wire, considering loads in extension and flexion, presents greater stability when compared to a fixation with two lateral wires, suggesting similar clinical results.Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia2019-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-36162019000300261Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia v.54 n.3 2019reponame:Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia (SBOT)instacron:SBOT10.1055/s-0039-1688756info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessNunes,Marcos CeitaPosser,Ticiano DozzaIsrael,Charles LeonardoSpinelli,Leandro de FreitasCalieron,Luis GustavoKim,Jung Hoeng2019-07-24T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0102-36162019000300261Revistahttp://www.rbo.org.br/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||rbo@sbot.org.br1982-43780102-3616opendoar:2019-07-24T00:00Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia (SBOT)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Biomechanical Analysis of Two Types of Humerus Supracondylar Fracture Fixation in Anatomical Model |
title |
Biomechanical Analysis of Two Types of Humerus Supracondylar Fracture Fixation in Anatomical Model |
spellingShingle |
Biomechanical Analysis of Two Types of Humerus Supracondylar Fracture Fixation in Anatomical Model Nunes,Marcos Ceita biomechanical phenomena epiphyses/injuries fracture fixation humeral fractures |
title_short |
Biomechanical Analysis of Two Types of Humerus Supracondylar Fracture Fixation in Anatomical Model |
title_full |
Biomechanical Analysis of Two Types of Humerus Supracondylar Fracture Fixation in Anatomical Model |
title_fullStr |
Biomechanical Analysis of Two Types of Humerus Supracondylar Fracture Fixation in Anatomical Model |
title_full_unstemmed |
Biomechanical Analysis of Two Types of Humerus Supracondylar Fracture Fixation in Anatomical Model |
title_sort |
Biomechanical Analysis of Two Types of Humerus Supracondylar Fracture Fixation in Anatomical Model |
author |
Nunes,Marcos Ceita |
author_facet |
Nunes,Marcos Ceita Posser,Ticiano Dozza Israel,Charles Leonardo Spinelli,Leandro de Freitas Calieron,Luis Gustavo Kim,Jung Ho |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Posser,Ticiano Dozza Israel,Charles Leonardo Spinelli,Leandro de Freitas Calieron,Luis Gustavo Kim,Jung Ho |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Nunes,Marcos Ceita Posser,Ticiano Dozza Israel,Charles Leonardo Spinelli,Leandro de Freitas Calieron,Luis Gustavo Kim,Jung Ho |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
biomechanical phenomena epiphyses/injuries fracture fixation humeral fractures |
topic |
biomechanical phenomena epiphyses/injuries fracture fixation humeral fractures |
description |
Abstract Objective To analyze the stability of humerus supracondylar fracture fixation with Kirschner wires comparing intramedullary and lateral (Fi), and two parallel lateral wires (FL) fixation in experimental models, to define which configuration presents greater stability. Methods A total of 72 synthetic humeri were cross-sectioned to simulate the fracture. These bones were divided into two equal groups and the fractures were fixed with parallel Kirschner wires (FL) and with a lateral and intramedullary (Fi) wire. Then, the test specimens were subjected to stress load tests on a universal test machine, measured in Newtons (N). Each group was subdivided into varus load, valgus, extension, flexion, external rotation and internal rotation. An analysis of the data was performed comparing the subgroups of the FL group with their respective subgroups of the Fi group through the two-tailed t test. Results The two-tailed t test showed that in 4 of the 6 evaluated conditions there was no significant statistical difference between the groups (p > 0.05). We have found a significant difference between the group with extension load with a mean of 19 N (FL group) and of 28.7 N (Fi group) (p = 0.004), and also between the groups with flexural load with themean of the forces recorded in the FL group of 17.1 N and of 22.9 N in the Fi group (p = 0.01). Conclusion Fixation with one intramedullary wire and one lateral wire, considering loads in extension and flexion, presents greater stability when compared to a fixation with two lateral wires, suggesting similar clinical results. |
publishDate |
2019 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2019-06-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-36162019000300261 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-36162019000300261 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1055/s-0039-1688756 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia v.54 n.3 2019 reponame:Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (Online) instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia (SBOT) instacron:SBOT |
instname_str |
Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia (SBOT) |
instacron_str |
SBOT |
institution |
SBOT |
reponame_str |
Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (Online) |
collection |
Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia (SBOT) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||rbo@sbot.org.br |
_version_ |
1752122361944997888 |