Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/1235
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPatel, Minoo-
dc.contributor.authorRichardson, Martin-
dc.contributor.otherAckland, David-
dc.contributor.otherGriggs, Ian-
dc.contributor.otherHislop, Patrick-
dc.contributor.otherWu, Wen-
dc.date.accessioned2017-09-13T02:52:05Z-
dc.date.available2017-09-13T02:52:05Z-
dc.date.issued2017-08-
dc.identifier.citationJ Orthop Surg Res. 2017 Aug 11;12(1):122en_US
dc.identifier.issn1749-799Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11434/1235-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Intramedullary fixation of comminuted mid-shaft clavicle fractures has traditionally been employed with satisfactory clinical outcomes; however, pins with smooth surfaces may protrude from the bone and are prone to migration, while some threaded pins are difficult to remove post-operatively. The aim of this proof-of-concept study was to develop and evaluate the biomechanical strength of a novel intramedullary Echidna pin device designed to maintain fracture reduction, resist migration and facilitate ease of post-operative removal. METHODS: Thirty human clavicle specimens were harvested and fractured in a comminuted mid-shaft butterfly configuration. Each specimen was randomly allocated to three surgical repair groups including intramedullary fixation using the Echidna pin and Herbert Cannulated Bone Screw System, as well as plate fixation using bi-cortical locking screws. Using a biomechanical testing apparatus, construct bending and torsional stiffness were measured, as well as ultimate bending strength. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in torsional stiffness and ultimate bending moment between the Echidna pin and Herbert screw repair constructs (p > 0.05); however, the Echidna pin construct demonstrated a significantly greater bending stiffness compared to that of the Herbert screw construct (mean difference 0.55 Nm/deg., p = 0.001). The plate construct demonstrated significantly greater torsional stiffness, bending stiffness and ultimate bending moment compared to those of the Herbert screw and Echidna pin (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: An intramedullary Echidna pin device was designed to stabilize comminuted fractures of the clavicle, maintain fracture compression and provide ease of removal post-operatively. Since the results suggest equivalent or superior torsional and bending stability in the Echidna pin compared to that of the Herbert screw, the Echidna pin concept may represent an alternative fixation device to conventional intramedullary screws, nails and pins; however, superior plating using bi-cortical locking screws provides substantially higher construct structural rigidity than intramedullary devices, and may therefore be useful in cases of osteoporotic bone, or where high fracture stability is required.en_US
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_US
dc.relation.urihttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5553590/-
dc.subjectBiomechanicsen_US
dc.subjectPlateen_US
dc.subjectRepair Constructen_US
dc.subjectScrewen_US
dc.subjectShoulderen_US
dc.subjectSurgeryen_US
dc.subjectUpper Limben_US
dc.subjectClavicle Fracturesen_US
dc.subjectIntramedullary Echidna Pin Deviceen_US
dc.subjectHerbert Cannulated Bone Screw Systemen_US
dc.subjectBi-Cortical Locking Screwsen_US
dc.subjectIntramedullary Fixationen_US
dc.subjectClinical Outcomesen_US
dc.subjectFracture Reductionen_US
dc.subjectRemoval, Post-Operativeen_US
dc.subjectMigration, Resistanceen_US
dc.subjectClavicle Specimensen_US
dc.subjectConstruct Bendingen_US
dc.subjectTorsional Stiffnessen_US
dc.subjectBending Strengthen_US
dc.subjectDepartment of Surgery, Epworth Healthcare, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.subjectCentre for Limb Reconstruction, The Epworth Centre, Richmond, Victoria, Australia.en_US
dc.subjectMusculoskeletal Clinical Institute, Epworth HealthCare, Victoria, Australia-
dc.titleAn intramedullary Echidna pin for fixation of comminuted clavicle fractures: a biomechanical study.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13018-017-0623-yen_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Researchen_US
dc.description.pubmedurihttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28800742en_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.description.affiliatesDepartment of Surgery, Southern Clinical School, Monash University, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.type.studyortrialComparative Studyen_US
dc.type.contenttypeTexten_US
Appears in Collections:General Surgery and Gastroenterology
Musculoskeletal

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat  
Ackland et al 2017.pdf1.47 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in Epworth are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.