FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Vet Surg / Biomechanical comparison of compact versus standard flute dr...
Veterinary surgery : VS2023; doi: 10.1111/vsu.13965

Biomechanical comparison of compact versus standard flute drill bits, and interlocking versus buttress thread self-tapping cortical bone screws in cadaveric equine third metacarpal condyle.

Abstract: To compare (1) performance of compact versus standard flute drill bits, (2) screw insertion properties and (3) pullout variables between interlocking thread (ITS) and buttress thread (BTS) self-tapping screws in third metacarpi. Methods: In vitro experimental study. Methods: Paired third metacarpi from 11 Thoroughbreds aged 2-4 years. Methods: Screws were inserted into the lateral condylar fossae following bone preparation using the respective drill bit for each screw type. Screw pullout was achieved using a mechanical testing system. Density and porosity of bone surrounding screw holes was measured with microcomputed tomography following each pullout test. Drilling, screw insertion and pullout variables were compared between drill bit and screw types using repeated measures ANOVA. Linear regression analyses were used to characterize relationships between bone tissue properties and drill bit and screw outcomes. Results: Maximum torque power spectral density (PSD) was lower for compact flute drill bits. Insertion torque was 50% higher for ITS. BTS had 33% greater preyield stiffness and 7% greater mean yield force. Bone tissue properties affected measured variables similarly for both screw and drill bit types. Conclusions: Lower torque PSD may increase durability of the compact flute drill bit. ITS had greater insertional torque, which may reflect greater bone engagement. BTS had greater resistance to axial pullout forces. Conclusions: Metacarpal bone provides a simple model for comparison of drill bit and screw designs. Use of ITS to repair equine fractures subject to predominantly tensile forces is not justified based on the results of this study.
© 2023 The Authors. Veterinary Surgery published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Veterinary Surgeons.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-06-11 PubMed ID: 37302003DOI: 10.1111/vsu.13965Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research study primarily compares the performance of two drill bits (compact flute vs standard flute) and two types of self-tapping screws (interlocking thread and buttress thread) when used on cadaveric equine third metacarpi. The results indicated that each tool has its respective pros and cons in terms of torque, insertional force, resistance to axial pullout forces, and their interaction with bone tissue properties.

Experiment Setup

  • The researchers selected third metacarpi from 11 Thoroughbreds aged between 2-4 years for their in vitro study.
  • The screws were inserted into the lateral condylar fossae after preparing the bone with the respective drill bit.
  • A mechanical testing system was used to perform screw pullout.
  • The density and porosity of the bone surrounding the screw holes were measured with microcomputed tomography following each pullout test.

Methods Used

  • Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare drilling, screw insertion, and pullout variables between the two types of drill bits and screws.
  • Linear regression analyses were employed to determine the relationship between bone tissue properties and the outcomes with the different drill bits and screws.

Performance Comparison

  • The compact flute drill bit had a lower maximum torque power spectral density (PSD) compared to the standard flute.
  • Interlocking thread screws (ITS) had 50% higher insertion torque compared to buttress thread screws (BTS).
  • BTS demonstrated 33% greater preyield stiffness and 7% greater mean yield force compared to ITS.
  • Bone tissue properties influenced the measured variables similarly for both the drill bits and the screws.

Conclusion

  • The lower torque PSD of the compact flute drill bit suggests that it might have greater durability.
  • The higher insertional torque for ITS suggests greater bone engagement.
  • The BTS resistance to axial pullout forces was greater, suggesting it might be more suitable for repairing fractures subjected primarily to tensile forces.
  • The study concluded that the use of ITS for repairing fractures predominantly subject to tensile forces is not justified based on the results of this study.
  • The researchers also concluded that metacarpal bone provides a simple model for comparing drill bit and screw designs.

Cite This Article

APA
Pye JL, Garcia TC, Kapatkin AS, Samol MA, Stover S. (2023). Biomechanical comparison of compact versus standard flute drill bits, and interlocking versus buttress thread self-tapping cortical bone screws in cadaveric equine third metacarpal condyle. Vet Surg. https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.13965

Publication

Veterinary surgery : VS
ISSN: 1532-950X
NlmUniqueID: 8113214
Country: United States
Language: English

Researcher Affiliations

Pye, Jannah L
  • William R. Pritchard Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, California, USA.
Garcia, Tanya C
  • JD Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, California, USA.
Kapatkin, Amy S
  • JD Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, California, USA.
  • Department of Surgical & Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, California, USA.
Samol, Monika A
  • California Animal Health and Food Safety System, San Bernadino Branch, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, California, USA.
Stover, Susan
  • JD Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, California, USA.
  • Department of Surgical & Radiological Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, California, USA.

Grant Funding

  • Dolly Green Endowment of the JD Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory
  • Veterinary Orthopedic Society Wade O. Brinker Resident Research Award

References

This article includes 43 references
  1. Stahel PF, Alfonso NA, Henderson C. Introducing the “bone-screw-fastener” for improved screw fixation in orthopedic surgery: a revolutionary paradigm shift?. Patient Saf Surg 2017;11:6.
  2. Alfonso NA, Baldini T, Stahel PF. A new fastener with improved bone-to-implant interface shows superior torque stripping resistance compared with the standard buttress screw. J Orthop Trauma 2019;33:137-142.
  3. Debaun MR, Swinford ST, Chen MJ. Biomechanical comparison of bone-screw-fasteners versus traditional locked screws in plating female geriatric bone. Injury 2020;51:193-198.
  4. Raleigh JS, Filliquist B, Kapatkin AS. Influence of interlocking thread screws to repair simulated adult canine humeral fractures. Vet Surg 2021;50:1237-1249.
  5. Simmons CH, Maguire DE, Phelps N. Screw threads and conventional representations. 2012:131-137.
  6. Eraslan O, Inan O. The effect of thread design on stress distribution in a solid screw implant: a 3D finite element analysis. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14:411-416.
  7. Baumgart FW, Cordey J, Morikawa K. AO/ASIF self-tapping screws (STS). Injury 1993;24:S1-S7.
  8. Pandey RK, Panda SS. Drilling of bone: a comprehensive review. Jcot 2013;4:15-30.
  9. Natali C, Ingle P, Dowell J. Orthopaedic bone drills-can they be improved? Temperature changes near the drilling face. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996;78:357-362.
  10. Bertollo N, Walsh WR. Drilling of bone: practicality, limitations and complications associated with surgical drill bits. 2011:53-82.
  11. Augustin G, Zigman T, Davila S. Cortical bone drilling and thermal osteonecrosis. J Clin Biomech 2012;27:313-325.
  12. Ueda T, Wada A, Hasegawa K-I. The effect of drill design elements on drilling characteristics when drilling bone. J Biomech Sci Eng 2010;5:399-407.
  13. Saha S, Pal S, Albright J. Surgical drilling: design and performance of an improved drill. J Biomech Eng 1982;104:245-252.
  14. Wright IM, Nixon AJ. Fractures of the condyles of the third metacarpal and metatarsal bones. 2019:378-424.
  15. Doering AK, Reesink HL, Luedke LK. Return to racing after surgical management of third carpal bone slab fractures in thoroughbred and Standardbred racehorses. Vet Surg 2019;48:513-523.
  16. Barker WHJ, Wright IM. Slab fractures of the third tarsal bone: minimally invasive repair using a single 3.5 mm cortex screw placed in lag fashion in 17 thoroughbred racehorses. Equine Vet J 2017;49:216-220.
  17. Winberg EG, Pettersson H. Outcome and racing performance after internal fixation of third and central tarsal bone slab fractures in horses. Acta Vet Scand 1999;40:173-180.
  18. Bramlage LR, Wright IM. Fractures of the proximal sesamoid bones. 2022:415-444.
  19. Biedrzychi AH, Kistler HC, Perez-Jimenez EE, Morton AJ. Use of Hausdorff distance and computer modelling to evaluate virtual surgical plans with three-dimensional printed guides against freehand techniques for navicular bone repair in equine orthopaedics. Vcot 2021;34:9-16.
  20. Weidling M, Wendler T, Schoenfelder S, Heyde C. Recommendations for standardized screw pull-out from polyurethane foam-the influence of density variations of the test foam and the insertion method. Med Eng Phys 2022;100:103750.
  21. Colgan SA, Hecker AT, Kirker-Head A, Hayes WC. A comparison of the Synthes 4.5-mm cannulated screw and the Synthes 4.5-mm standard cortex screw systems in equine bone. Vet Surg 1998;27:540-546.
  22. Sedrish SA, Moore RM, Kelly K, Martin GS, Burba DJ. Pullout strength of screws in foal third metacarpal bone after overdrilling a 4.5 mm hole. Vcot 1998;11:200-204.
  23. Sedrish SA, Moore RM, Kelly K, Martin GS, Burba DJ. In vitro pullout strength of screws inserted in adult equine third metacarpal bone after overdrilling a 4.5mm threaded insertion hole. Vet Surg 1998;27:143-149.
  24. Andrea CR, Stover SM, Caluppo LD, Taylor KT, Rakestraw PC. Comparison of insertion time and pullout strength between self-tapping and non-self tapping AO 4.5mm cortical bone screws in adult equine third metacarpal bone. Vet Surg 2002;31:189-194.
  25. Kawcak CE, McIlwraith CW, Norrdin RW, Park RD, Steyn PS. Clinical effects of exercise on subchondral bone of carpal and metacarpophalangeal joints in horses. Am J Vet Res 2000;61:1252-1258.
  26. Gupta V, Pandey PM. In-situ tool wear monitoring and its effects on the performance of porcine cortical bone drilling: a comparative in-vitro investigation. Mech Adv Mater Struct 2017;3:2.
  27. Salomo-Coll O, Auriol-Muerza B, Lozano-Carrascal N, Hernandez-Alfaro WH, Gargallo-Albiol J. Influence of bone density, drill diameter, drilling speed, and irrigation on temperature changes during implant osteotomies: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 2021;25:1047-1053.
  28. Addevuci F, Morandi M, Scaglione M, Solitro CF. Screw insertion torque as a parameter to judge the fixation. Assessment of torque and pull-out strength in different bone densities and screw-pitches. Clin Biomech 2020;72:130-135.
  29. Mohlhenrich SC, Abouridouane M, Huessen N, Modabber A, Klocke F, Holle F. Influence of bone density and implant drill diameter on the resulting axial force and temperature development in implant burs and artificial bone: an in vitro study. Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016;20:135-142.
  30. Wirth AJ, Goldhahn J, Flaig C, Arben P, Muller R, van Lenthe GH. Implant stability is affected by local bone microstructural quality. Bone 2011;49:473-478.
  31. Schatzker J, Sanderson R, Murnaghan PJ. The holding power of orthopedic screws in vivo. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1975;108:115-126.
  32. Matthews LS, Hirsch C. Temperatures measured in human cortical bone when drilling. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1972;54A:297-308.
  33. Hirt U, Auer J, Perren S. Drill bit failure without implant involvement-an intraoperative complication in orthopaedic surgery. Injury 1992;23:S5-S16.
  34. Toews A, Bailey J, Townsend H, Barber S. Effect of feed rate and drill speed on temperatures in equine cortical bone. Am J Vet Res 1999;60:942-944.
  35. Lee J, Chavez CL, Park J. Parameters affecting mechanical and thermal responses in bone drilling: a review. J Biomech 2018;71:4-21.
  36. Yerby S, Scott CC, Evans NJ, Messing KL, Carter DR. Effect of cutting flute design on cortical bone screw insertion torque and pullout strength. J Orthop Trauma 2001;15:216-221.
  37. Cleek T, Reynolds K, Hearn T. Effect of screw torque level on cortical bone pullout strength. J Orthop Trauma 2007;21:117-123.
  38. Duyck J, Corpas L, Vermeiren S. Histological, histomorphometrical, and radiological evaluation of an experimental implant design with a high insertion torque. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21:877-884.
  39. Chatistergos PE, Magnissalis EA, Kourkoulis SK. A parametric study of cylindrical pedicle screw design implications on the pullout performance using an experimentally validated finite-element model. Med Eng Phys 2010;32:145-154.
  40. Krenn MH, Piotrowski WP, Penkofer R, Augat P. Influence of thread design on pedicle screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;9:90-95.
  41. DeCoster TA, Heetderks DB, Downey DJ, Ferries JS, Jones W. Optimizing bone screw pullout force. J Orthop Trauma 1990;4:169-174.
  42. Pfeiffer FM, Abernathie DL. A comparison of pullout strength for pedicle screws of different designs: a study using tapped and untapped pilot holes. Spine 2006;31:867-870.
  43. Shea TM, Laun J, Gonzalez-Blohm SA. Designs and techniques that improve the pullout strength of pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae: current status. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:748393.
    doi: 10.1155/2014/748393google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,034 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.