the original publication is availbale at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40634-019-0209-1?wt_mc=Internal.Event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorIncrementalIssue&utm_source=ArticleAuthorIncrementalIssue&utm_medium=email&utm_content=AA_en_06082018&ArticleAuthorIncrementalIssue_20191110
All documents in ORBilu are protected by a user license.
Abstract :
[en] Background This study aimed to assess the mechanical static and fatigue strength
provided by the FlexitSystem plate in medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomies
(MOWHTO), and to compare it to six previously tested implants: the TomoFix small
stature, the TomoFix standard, the ContourLock, the iBalance, the second generation
PEEKPower and the size 2 Activmotion. Thus, this will provide surgeons with data that
will help in the choice of the most appropriate implant for MOWHTO. Methods Six
fourth-generation tibial bone composites underwent a MOWHTO and each was fixed
using six FlexitSystem plates, according to standard techniques. The same testing
procedure that has already been previously defined, used and published, was used to
investigate the static and dynamic strength of the prepared bone-implant constructs.
The test consisted of static loading and cyclical loading for fatigue testing. Results
During static testing, the group constituted by the FlexitSystem showed a fracture load
higher than the physiological loading of slow walking (3.7 kN > 2.4 kN). Although this
fracture load was relatively small compared to the average values for the other
Implants from our previous studies, except for the TomoFix small stature and the
Contour Lock. During fatigue testing, FlexitSystem group showed the smallest stiffness
and higher lifespan than the TomoFix and the PEEKPower groups. Conclusions The
FlexitSystem plate showed sufficient strength for static loading, and average fatigue
strength compared to the previously tested implants. Full body dynamic loading of the
tibia after MOWHTO with the investigated implants should be avoided for at least three
weeks. Implants with a wider T-shaped proximal end, positioned onto the anteromedial
side of the tibia head, or inserted in the osteotomy opening in a closed-wedge
construction, provided higher mechanical strength than implants with small a T-shaped
proximal end, centred onto the medial side of the tibia head.
Scopus citations®
without self-citations
6
