CLINICAL APPLICATION OF AXIAL LOAD MECHANICAL TESTING IN REMOVING EXTERNAL FIXATOR AFTER TIBIA AND FIBULA FRACTURES SURGERY_Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

Authors：

LUQingwei ¹ ,  WANChunyou ² , ZHANGTao ² , WANGXiaowei ¹ , LIUYanshi ³ , MAJihai ¹

1. Graduate School of Tianjin Traditional Chinese Medicine University, Tianjin, 300193, P. R. China;
2. No.1 Ward of Limb Orthopedics, Tianjin Hospital;
3. Graduate School of Tianjin Medical University;

Corresponding author：

WANChunyou, Email: wanchunyouxs@163.com

Keywords：

Axial load; External fixator; Mechanical test; Tibia and fibula fractures

DOI：

10.7507/1002-1892.20160221

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To explore the efficacy and safety of the axial load mechanical testing for removing external fixator. Methods Between January 2014 and August 2015, 27 patients with tibia and fibula fractures caused by trauma underwent an external fixation. Of 27 patients, 21 were male and 6 were female with the average age of 45 years (range, 19-63 years), including 7 cases of closed fracture and 20 cases of open fracture. X-ray film results showed spiral unstable fracture in 4 cases and comminuted unstable fracture in 23 cases. All patients underwent an external fixation. Bone nonunion occurred in 3 cases because of infection, and bone nonunion combined with bone defect occurred in 1 case, who received tibial osteotomy lengthening surgery. When X-ray film showed continuity high density callus formation at fracture site, axial load mechanical test was performed. If the axial load ratio of external fixator was less than 10%, the external fixator was removed. Results At 21-85 weeks after external fixation (mean, 44 weeks), axial load mechanical test was performed. The results showed that the axial load ratio of external fixation was less than 10% in 26 cases, and the external fixator was removed; at 6 weeks after removal of external fixator, the patients could endure full load and return to work, without re-fracture. The axial load ratio was 14% in 1 case at 85 weeks, and the X-ray film result showed that fracture did not completely heal with angular deformity; re-fracture occurred after removing external fixator, and intramedullary fixation was used. Conclusion External fixator axial load mechanical testing may objectively reveal and quantitatively evaluate fracture healing, so it is safe and reliable to use for guiding the external fixator removal.

Citation： LUQingwei, WANChunyou, ZHANGTao, WANGXiaowei, LIUYanshi, MAJihai. CLINICAL APPLICATION OF AXIAL LOAD MECHANICAL TESTING IN REMOVING EXTERNAL FIXATOR AFTER TIBIA AND FIBULA FRACTURES SURGERY. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2016, 30(9): 1085-1088. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.20160221 Copy

1.	Lee CK, Chua YP, Saw A. Antimicrobial gauze as a dressing reduces pin site infection:a randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2012, 470(2):610-615.
2.	Kocaoglu M, Eralp L, Kilicoglu O, et al. Complications encountered during lengthening over an intramedullary nail. J Bone Joint Surg (Am), 2004, 86-A(11):2406-2411.
3.	Simpson AH, Kenwright J. Fracture after distraction osteogenesis. J Bone Joint Surg (Br), 2000, 82(5):659-665.
4.	Saran N, Hamdy RC. DEXA as a predictor of fixator removal in distraction osteogenesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2008, 466(12):2955-2961.
5.	Chachan S, Tudu B, Sahu B. Ultrasound monitoring of fracture healing:is this the end of radiography in fracture follow-ups? J Orthop Trauma, 2015, 29(3):e133-138.
6.	Lowet G, Van der Perre G. Ultrasound velocity measurement in long bones:measurement method and simulation of ultrasound wave propagation. J Biomech, 1996, 29(10):1255-1262.
7.	De Backer AI, Mortelé KJ, De Keulenaer BL. Picture archiving and communication system-Part one:filmless radiology and distance radiology. JBR-BTR, 2004, 87(5):234-241.
8.	Aarnes GT, Steen H, Ludvigsen P, et al. In vivo assessment of regenerate axial stiffness in distraction osteogenesis. J Orthop Res, 2005, 23(2):494-498.
9.	郭占社, 房远勇, 梁向党, 等.骨科生物力学参数测试理论及方法研究进展.中国医疗器械杂志, 2010, 34(5):350-354.
10.	Donnan LT, Saleh M, Rigby AS, et al. Radiographic assessment of bone formation in tibia during distraction osteogenesis. J Pediatr Orthop, 2002, 22(5):645-651.
11.	Zhao L, Fan Q, Venkatesh KP, et al. Objective guidelines for removing an external fixator after tibial lengthening using pixel value ratio:a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2009, 467(12):3321-3326.
12.	马信龙, 马剑雄, 徐卫国, 等.骨科生物力学研究的测量方法学专家共识.中国骨质疏松杂志, 2014, 20(9):1039-1054.
13.	郑诚功.骨科生物力学的进展.中华创伤骨科杂志, 2005, 7(10):901-902.
14.	李跃飞, 田贺, 张文泰.中西医结合治疗四肢骨折.长春中医药大学学报, 2015, 31(2):316-317.
15.	许志宇, 孟和.由"动静结合、筋骨并重"谈孟氏学术理念.西部中医药, 2016, 29(1):58-60.
16.	夏和桃.外固定器刚度对骨折愈合的影响.中华创伤骨科杂志, 2007, 9(12):1170-1172.
17.	秦泗河.骨外固定技术的发展与创新.中医正骨, 2012, 24(9):643-647.
18.	Arora J, Malik AC. External fixation in comminuted, displaced intra-articular fractures of the distal radius:is it sufficient? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2005, 125(8):536-540.

1. Lee CK, Chua YP, Saw A. Antimicrobial gauze as a dressing reduces pin site infection:a randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2012, 470(2):610-615.
2. Kocaoglu M, Eralp L, Kilicoglu O, et al. Complications encountered during lengthening over an intramedullary nail. J Bone Joint Surg (Am), 2004, 86-A(11):2406-2411.
3. Simpson AH, Kenwright J. Fracture after distraction osteogenesis. J Bone Joint Surg (Br), 2000, 82(5):659-665.
4. Saran N, Hamdy RC. DEXA as a predictor of fixator removal in distraction osteogenesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2008, 466(12):2955-2961.
5. Chachan S, Tudu B, Sahu B. Ultrasound monitoring of fracture healing:is this the end of radiography in fracture follow-ups? J Orthop Trauma, 2015, 29(3):e133-138.
6. Lowet G, Van der Perre G. Ultrasound velocity measurement in long bones:measurement method and simulation of ultrasound wave propagation. J Biomech, 1996, 29(10):1255-1262.
7. De Backer AI, Mortelé KJ, De Keulenaer BL. Picture archiving and communication system-Part one:filmless radiology and distance radiology. JBR-BTR, 2004, 87(5):234-241.
8. Aarnes GT, Steen H, Ludvigsen P, et al. In vivo assessment of regenerate axial stiffness in distraction osteogenesis. J Orthop Res, 2005, 23(2):494-498.
9. 郭占社, 房远勇, 梁向党, 等.骨科生物力学参数测试理论及方法研究进展.中国医疗器械杂志, 2010, 34(5):350-354.
10. Donnan LT, Saleh M, Rigby AS, et al. Radiographic assessment of bone formation in tibia during distraction osteogenesis. J Pediatr Orthop, 2002, 22(5):645-651.
11. Zhao L, Fan Q, Venkatesh KP, et al. Objective guidelines for removing an external fixator after tibial lengthening using pixel value ratio:a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2009, 467(12):3321-3326.
12. 马信龙, 马剑雄, 徐卫国, 等.骨科生物力学研究的测量方法学专家共识.中国骨质疏松杂志, 2014, 20(9):1039-1054.
13. 郑诚功.骨科生物力学的进展.中华创伤骨科杂志, 2005, 7(10):901-902.
14. 李跃飞, 田贺, 张文泰.中西医结合治疗四肢骨折.长春中医药大学学报, 2015, 31(2):316-317.
15. 许志宇, 孟和.由"动静结合、筋骨并重"谈孟氏学术理念.西部中医药, 2016, 29(1):58-60.
16. 夏和桃.外固定器刚度对骨折愈合的影响.中华创伤骨科杂志, 2007, 9(12):1170-1172.
17. 秦泗河.骨外固定技术的发展与创新.中医正骨, 2012, 24(9):643-647.
18. Arora J, Malik AC. External fixation in comminuted, displaced intra-articular fractures of the distal radius:is it sufficient? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2005, 125(8):536-540.

Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery

CLINICAL APPLICATION OF AXIAL LOAD MECHANICAL TESTING IN REMOVING EXTERNAL FIXATOR AFTER TIBIA AND FIBULA FRACTURES SURGERY

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content