Abstract
Objective. The aim of this study was to determine the stiffness characteristics of the standard
and hybrid Ilizarov fixators.
Design. Five different frame models (one standard and four hybrid Ilizarov) were designed.
Four full rings were used in the standard Ilizarov frame. Two rings were placed proximal
and two rings were placed distal to the osteotomy line with two wires at 90° to each
other on each ring. The distal tibial fixation of all the hybrid configurations and
standard Ilizarov fixator were the same, and only the proximal fixations were different.
In hybrid models, different numbers of 90° femoral arches (1–3) were fixed to the
proximal segment by using the half-pins with different numbers (2–4) and different
angles to each other (45° and 90°).
Background. Numerous investigations have been performed to compare the mechanical properties
of different frames. The Ilizarov method of fracture fixation and limb lengthening
has recently gained international recognition. But its application is difficult in
some anatomic localization, so that hybrid ring fixation frames of various configurations
are gaining clinical popularity.
Methods. Five different frame models were applied to the sheep tibial bones. The midpoint
of the tibial bones was osteotomised and the osteotomy distracted for 2 cm. Four identical
samples for each model were created and each identical sample of each model (n=1) were tested four times in axial compression, antero-posterior and medio-lateral
bending, and torsion.
Results. In standard Ilizarov fixator, axial and bending stiffness was found to be more than
all hybrid Ilizarov fixator models. Between the hybrid fixators, higher axial and
bending stiffness was found when the number of femoral arches and half-pins were increased.
Different angles between the half-pins formed 67% alteration in medio-lateral bending
stiffness. No significant difference was found for torsional stiffness between the
fixator models.
Conclusions. For optimum fixator stiffness in hybrid fixators, at least three femoral arches and
four half-pins must be used and these half-pins should be placed at 90° angles and
at different planes to each other. However, it should be remembered that, hybrid fixator
models had less axial and bending stiffness than standard Ilizarov fixator model.Relevance
For optimum fixator stiffness in hybrid fixators, at least three femoral arches and
four half-pins must be used. However, it should be remembered that, hybrid fixator
models had less axial and bending stiffness than standard Ilizarov fixator model.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical BiomechanicsAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- The use of the Ilizarov concept with the AO/ASIF tubuler fixator in the treatment of segmental defects.Orthop. Clin. North Am. 1990; 21: 655-665
- Performance of external fixation devices in femoral fractures; the ultimate challenge? A laboratory study with plastic rods.Injury. 1990; 21: 145-151
- Stability of external circular fixation: a multi-variable biomechanical analysis.Clin. Biomech. 1998; 13: 441-448
- Rigidity of half-pins for the Ilizarov external fixator.Bull. Hosp. Jt. Dis. 1992; 52: 21-26
- Biomechanics of the Ilizarov fixator for fracture fixation.Clin. Orthop. 1992; 280: 15-22
- Lengthening of the femur.in: Maiocchi A.B. Advances in Ilizarov Apparatus Assembly. Il Quadratino, Milan , Italy1994: 91-93
- The effect of rigidity on fracture healing in external fixation.Clin. Orthop. 1989; 241: 24-35
- Osteoneogenesis and its influencing factors during treatment with the Ilizarov method.Clin. Orthop. 1996; 323: 261-272
- A biomechanical analysis of the Ilizarov external fixator.Clin. Orthop. 1989; 241: 95-105
- Stiffness characteristics of the circular Ilizarov device as opposed to conventional external fixator.J. Biomech. Eng. 1990; 112: 15-21
- Transosseous Osteosynthesis.Springer, Heidelberg1991 (pp. 3–279)
- Fracture site motion with Ilizarov and “hybrid” external fixation.J. Orthop. Trauma. 1998; 12: 21-26
- Biomechanics of the Ilizarov external fixator.Clin. Orthop. 1992; 280: 11-14
- Biomechanics of radio transparent circular external fixators.Clin. Orthop. 1994; 308: 68-72
- The effect of wire configuration on the stability of the Ilizarov external fixator.Clin. Orthop. 1992; 279: 299-302
- Mechanical evaluation of external fixators used in limb lengthening.Clin. Orthop. 1990; 250: 50-57
- Mechanical performance of Ilizarov circular external fixators in comparison with other external fixators.Clin. Orthop. 1993; 293: 61-70
- The biomechanics of hybrid external fixation.J. Orthop. Trauma. 1999; 13: 20-26
- The hybrid ring tubular external fixator: a biomechanical study.Clin. Biomech. 1997; 12: 259-266
- Comparison of osteotomy healing under external fixation devices with different stiffness characteristics.J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 1984; 66: 1258-1264
- The effects of different wire and screw combinations on the stiffness of a hybrid external fixator.Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. [H]. 2000; 214: 669-676
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
March 28,
2003
Received:
May 20,
2002
Identification
Copyright
© 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
