In vitro comparison of two centrally threaded, positive-profile transfixation pin designs for use in third metacarpal bones in horses.
Abstract: To compare heat generation during insertion, pullout strength, and associated microdamage between a self-tapping positive profile transfixation pin (STTP) and nontapping positive profile transfixation pin (NTTP). Methods: 30 pairs of third metacarpal bones (MC3s) from adult equine cadavers. Methods: One MC3 of each pair was assigned to the STTP group; the other was assigned to the NTTP group. The assigned pin was inserted into the diaphysis in a lateral to medial direction. Bone temperature increase during pilot-hole drilling and pin insertion was recorded at 1 mm from the final thread position with wire thermocouples at cis and trans cortices. Resistance to axial extraction before and after cyclic loading was measured in a material testing device, and microstructural damage caused by transfixation pin insertion was assessed with scanning electron microscopy. Results: The STTP group developed a significant increase in bone temperature, compared with the NTTP group. No significant difference was found between the mean maximal pullout strength of the STTP and the NTTP in both non-cyclic-loaded and cyclic-loaded groups. Microdamage to the bone-pin interface was lower when the STTP versus the NTTP was used, but more bone debris was apparent after inserting the STTP. Conclusions: Because of the significant increase in temperature generation and debris accumulation despite similar pullout strengths and lesser microfracture formation, the STTP likely poses a higher risk of bone necrosis and potential loosening than the NTTP. This might be corrected by redesign of the tapping aspect of the STTP.
Publication Date: 2010-08-03 PubMed ID: 20673099DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.71.8.976Google 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.
- Journal Article
- Research Support
- Non-U.S. Gov't
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.
This research article examines the difference between two designs of transfixation pins used in equine surgery, specifically in the third metacarpal bones of horses. The study found that while both pin designs performed similarly in terms of attachment strength, self-tapping positive profile pins generated more heat and debris during insertion, which could possibly cause bone damage.
Objective and Methods
- The research aimed to compare two designs of transfixation pins used in equine surgery: self-tapping positive profile transfixation pins (STTP) and non-tapping positive profile transfixation pins (NTTP).
- An experiment was conducted on 30 pairs of third metacarpal bones from adult equine cadavers. One bone from each pair was assigned to the STTP group, and the other was assigned to the NTTP group.
- The pins were inserted into the bone and the temperature increase during this process was recorded.
- The researchers then measured the resistance to axial extraction, both before and after cyclic loading, and examined the resulting microstructural damage using scanning electron microscopy.
Results
- The results showed that the STTP design generated a significant increase in bone temperature compared to the NTTP design.
- The researchers found no significant difference in the mean maximal pullout strength between the two pin designs, even after cyclic loading.
- The study also found that microdamage to the bone-pin interface was lower with the STTP, but more bone debris was evident after insertion.
Conclusions
- The findings suggest that despite the similar pullout strengths and lower incidence of microfracture, the STTP poses a higher risk of bone necrosis and potential loosening due to the significant rise in temperature generated during insertion and the accumulation of debris.
- The researchers suggest that this issue could be mitigated by redesigning the tapping aspect of the STTP design.
Cite This Article
APA
Bubeck KA, García-Lopez JM, Jenei TM, Maranda LS.
(2010).
In vitro comparison of two centrally threaded, positive-profile transfixation pin designs for use in third metacarpal bones in horses.
Am J Vet Res, 71(8), 976-981.
https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.71.8.976 Publication
Researcher Affiliations
- Orthopedic Research Laboratory, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, MA 01536, USA. kirstin.bubeck@tufts.edu
MeSH Terms
- Animals
- Biomechanical Phenomena
- Body Temperature
- Body Weight
- Bone Nails / veterinary
- Cadaver
- Diaphyses / surgery
- Equipment Design
- Euthanasia
- External Fixators / veterinary
- Fractures, Bone / surgery
- Fractures, Bone / veterinary
- Horses
- Metacarpus / surgery
- Stress, Mechanical
Citations
This article has been cited 1 times.- Akhbar MFA, Sulong AW. Surgical Drill Bit Design and Thermomechanical Damage in Bone Drilling: A Review. Ann Biomed Eng 2021 Jan;49(1):29-56.
Use Nutrition Calculator
Check if your horse's diet meets their nutrition requirements with our easy-to-use tool Check your horse's diet with our easy-to-use tool
Talk to a Nutritionist
Discuss your horse's feeding plan with our experts over a free phone consultation Discuss your horse's diet over a phone consultation
Submit Diet Evaluation
Get a customized feeding plan for your horse formulated by our equine nutritionists Get a custom feeding plan formulated by our nutritionists
