Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Stability of two angular stable locking plates for open wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO): TomoFix™ versus LOQTEQ® HTO plate

  • Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The aim of this study was to test the mechanical stability of LOQTEQ® HTO plate in comparison to the TomoFix™ internal plate fixator.

Materials and methods

An unstable fracture gap model with two standardized polyoxymethylene (POM) cylinders was used for this study. With this model 5 LOQTEQ® HTO plates and 5 TomoFix™ were cyclically loaded. The start load was 100 N and increased by 50 N after each successful completed cycle. Each load step included 250,000 cycles. All tests were performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Specification and Test Method for Metallic Bone Plates F382–99(2003)e1.

Results

The mean fatigue strength of the LOQTEQ® HTO Plate was 155 % of the value gained by the TomoFix™ implant. This difference was statistically significant (t test <0.001). There was also a significant difference in the cycles but both implants survived. The LOQTEQ® HTO Plate system survived 1,520,336.8 (±121,687.7) cycles, whereas the TomoFix™ group passed on average 847,802,600 (±134,660.7) cycles. In both groups, the only failure mode was plate breakage in a shaft hole.

Conclusions

The results of the present study showed that fatigue strength of the LOQTEQ® HTO plate was significantly higher in comparison to TomoFix™. These results justify the clinical use of the LOQTEQ® HTO plate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agneskirchner JD, Freiling D, Hurschler C, Lobenhoffer P (2006) Primary stability of four different implants for opening wedge high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14(3):291–300

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahmad M, Nanda R, Bajwa AS, Candal-Couto J, Green S, Hui AC (2007) Biomechanical testing of the locking compression plate: when does the distance between bone and implant significantly reduce construct stability? Injury 38(3):358–364

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Annual book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International (2004) American Society for Testing & Materials

  4. Bode G, von Heyden J, Pestka J, Schmal H, Salzmann G, Südkamp N, Niemeyer P (2013) Prospective 5-year survival rate data following open-wedge valgus high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19 (Epub ahead of print)

  5. Brinkman JM, Lobenhoffer P, Agneskirchner JD, Staubli AE, Wymenga AB, van Heerwaarden RJ (2008) Osteotomies around the knee: patient selection, stability of fixation and bone healing in high tibial osteotomies. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(12):1548–1557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Estes C, Rhee P, Shrader MW, Csavina K, Jacofsky MC, Jacofsky DJ (2008) Biomechanical strength of the Peri-Loc proximal tibial plate: a comparison of all-locked versus hybrid locked/nonlocked screw configurations. J Orthop Trauma 22(5):312–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Floerkemeier S, Staubli AE, Schroeter S, Goldhahn S (2013) Lobenhoffer P (2013) Outcome after high tibial open-wedge osteotomy: a retrospective evaluation of 533 patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(1):170–180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Florin M, Arzdorf M, Linke B, Auer JA (2005) Assessment of stiffness and strength of 4 different implants available for equine fracture treatment: a study on a 20 degrees oblique long-bone fracture model using a bone substitute. Vet Surg 34(3):231–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gaebler C, Speitling A, Milne EL, Stanzl-Tschegg S, Vecsei V, Latta LL (2001) A new modular testing system for biomechanical evaluation of tibial intramedullary fixation devices. Injury 32(9):708–712

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MTP641. Accessed 7 July 2014

  11. http://www.makeitfrom.com/compare-materials/?A=Commercially-Pure-Titanium&B=Grade-5-6Al-4V-3.7165-R56400-Titanium. Accessed 7 July 2014

  12. Irubetagoyena I, Verset M, Palierne S, Swider P, Autefage A (2013) Ex vivo cyclic mechanical behaviour of 2.4 mm locking plates compared with 2.4 mm limited contact plates in a cadaveric diaphyseal gap model. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 26(6):479–488

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jung WH, Chun CW, Lee JH, Ha JH, Kim JH, Jeong JH (2013) Comparative study of medial opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy using 2 different implants. Arthroscopy 29(6):1063–1071

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kobayashi S, Ohgoe Y, Ozeki K, Hirakuri K, Aoki H (2007) Dissolution effect and cytotoxicity of diamond-like carbon coatings on orthodontic archwires. J Mater Sci Mater Med 18(12):2263–2268

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lobenhoffer P, Agneskirchner J, Zoch W (2004) Open valgus alignment osteotomy of the proximal tibia with fixation by medial plate fixator. Orthopade 33(2):153–160

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Luo CA, Hua SY, Lin SC, Chen CM, Tseng CS (2013) Stress and stability comparison between different systems for high tibial osteotomies. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25(14):110. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Luites JW, Brinkman JM, Wymenga AB, van Heerwaarden RJ (2009) Fixation stability of opening- versus closing-wedge high tibial osteotomy: a randomised clinical trial using radiostereometry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(11):1459–1465

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Matsushita K, Inoue N, Totsuka Y (2011) In vitro biomechanical evaluation of the effect of an additional L-shaped plate on straight or box plate fixation in sagittal split ramus osteotomy using a bioabsorbable plate system. Oral Maxillofac Surg 15(3):139–146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Niemeyer P, Schmal H, Hauschild O, von Heyden J, Südkamp NP, Köstler W (2010) Open-wedge osteotomy using an internal plate fixator in patients with medial-compartment gonarthritis and varus malalignment: 3-year results with regard to preoperative arthroscopic and radiographic findings. Arthroscopy 26(12):1607–1616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schröter S, Gonser CE, Konstantinidis L, Helwig P, Albrecht D (2011) High complication rate after biplanar open wedge high tibial osteotomy stabilized with a new spacer plate (Position HTO plate) without bone substitute. Arthroscopy 27(5):644–652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Spahn G (2004) Complications in high tibial (medial opening wedge) osteotomy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124(10):649–653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Staubli AE (2011) Open-wedge high tibial osteotomy with a locking plate (tomofix) for treatment of medial monocompartment osteoarthritis. Elsevier 21(2):156–162

    Google Scholar 

  23. Staubli A, Hilaire A, Jacob C (2010) Evolution of open-wedge high-tibial osteotomy: experience with a special angular stable device for internal fixation without interposition material. Int Orthop 34(2):167–172

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Staubli AE, De Simoni C, Babst R, Lobenhoffer P (2003) TomoFix: a new LCP-concept for open wedge osteotomy of the medial proximal tibia—early results in 92 cases. Injury 34(Suppl 2):B55–B62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Uhl JM, Seguin B, Kapatkin AS, Schulz KS, Garcia TC, Stover SM (2008) Mechanical comparison of 3.5 mm broad dynamic compression plate, broad limited-contact dynamic compression plate, and narrow locking compression plate systems using interfragmentary gap models. Vet Surg 37(7):663–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. van den Bekerom MP, Patt TW, Kleinhout MY, van der Vis HM, Albers GH (2008) Early complications after high tibial osteotomy: a comparison of two techniques. J Knee Surg 21:68–74

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Martin Luther Hospital, Caspar Theyss Straße 27-31, Grunewald, 14193, Berlin, Germany

    Wolf Petersen & Hi Un Park

  2. AAP Implantate AG, Lorenzweg 5, 12099, Berlin, Germany

    Alexander Wall, Thomas Paulin & Lydia Heymann

Authors
  1. Wolf Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander Wall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Paulin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hi Un Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lydia Heymann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolf Petersen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Petersen, W., Wall, A., Paulin, T. et al. Stability of two angular stable locking plates for open wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO): TomoFix™ versus LOQTEQ® HTO plate. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134, 1437–1442 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-2042-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-2042-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation