The Effect of the Position of Compression Screw in Plate-Screws Method Used in Fracture Treatment on Fatigue Strength of Joint
A number of combination studies on the use of plate-screws, which has become a traditional method in fracture treatment, have been conducted to obtain a more rigid joint. These studies in the literature were reviewed and it was seen that the effect of the position of the compression screw, used with the aim of making the fracture line come closer to each other during fracture fixation, on the fatigue strength of the joint hasn’t been investigated. Within the scope of this study, a screw combination study by including Limited Contact Dynamic Compression Plate (LC-DCP) plates that possess combined hole properties was carried out. Three different combinations were created during the study. In these combinations, the unlocked screw that was located on the part where the force was applied and that was used for compression was placed in different holes and fatigue strengths of the joints were investigated under dynamic bending force. As a result of the study, it was observed that as the compression screw moved away from the fracture line, fatigue strength of the joint consisting of plate, screw and bone decreased. In addition, it was found that all the joints in the 3rd combination got damaged as a result of the fracture of the bone.
KeywordsAnatomic plate Plate screw Limited contact dynamic compression plate (LCP) Fatigue Biomechanics
This study was performed in the framework of The Scientific Projects Unit of Pamukkale University, Project No: 2016-FEBE-038
- 7.Bekler, H., Bulut, G., Usta, M., Gökçe, A., Okyar, F., Beyzadeoğlu, T.: Osteoporotik kemikte kilitli plak ve açılı vida kullanımının stabilizasyonun dayanıklılığına katkısı: Deneysel çalışma. Acta Orthop. Traumato. 42, 125–129 (2008)Google Scholar
- 12.Overturf, S.J., Morris, R.P., Gugala, Z., Lindsey, R.W.: Biomechanical comparison unicortal far-cortex-abutting locking screw-plate fixation for comminuted radial shaft fractures. J. Hand Surg. Am. 39, 1907–1913 (2014)Google Scholar