A biomechanical study: Comparison of three different implant options in high Tibial osteotomy

MakaleYayıncıda açık erişimScopus SJRQ2

Özet

Background: Many implant options could be preferable for fixation after osteotomy in varus knee medial compartment arthrosis. Due to usage characteristics, it is important to compare the biomechanical properties of them. For this purpose, we aimed to examine three different implant types biomechanically in our study. Methods: Ovine tibiae undergoing medial open-wedge high tibial osteotomy were fixed in vitro with three different implants using an angular wedge plate, a metal block plate and an external fixator system. The fixed ovine tibiae were subjected to axial tensile, axial loading and three-point bending tests in a test machine. All biomechanical tests were repeated five times, the maximum and minimum values were ignored, and the average values of the remaining three test results were taken into account. The test results were interpreted after converted into force-elongation curves in Trapezium-X software. Findings: Biomechanical test results revealed some differences between implant types. While the metal block plate had the highest axial tensile strength value, it was the fixation group showing the lowest strength in axial load tests. The used fixator system was the highest strength in axial load tests and the lowest strength in axial tensile tests. Interpretation: Considering the clinically significant forces related to the biomechanical stability of the three different implants used for high tibial osteotomy, the fixator system would appear to be slightly superior, although it should be noted that torsional forces, as well as parameters that could change in living tissue, might affect the results.

Anahtar Kelimeler

RDL Kalıcı Bağlantı (PID)
https://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/munzur/2720Resmi atıflarda kullanılan kalıcı adres
İndeks kayıtları
Kaydın indeks veri tabanlarındaki sayfası (aktarımda alınan kayıt numarasıyla). Erişim, indeksin kendi koşullarına bağlıdır.
Atıflar
Scopus
0
WoS
0
Her kaynağın kendi saydığı toplam atıf; aktarım ve zenginleştirme sırasında alındı.
Tam Kayıt
AlanDeğerDil
dc.contributor.authorKey, Sefa
dc.contributor.authorDemir, Sukru
dc.contributor.authorAydın, Oğuz
dc.contributor.authorSay, Yakup
dc.contributor.authorErten, Mehmet
dc.date.accessioned2026-10-28T14:55:43.784835366Z
dc.date.available2026-10-28T14:55:43.784835366Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.description.abstractBackground: Many implant options could be preferable for fixation after osteotomy in varus knee medial compartment arthrosis. Due to usage characteristics, it is important to compare the biomechanical properties of them. For this purpose, we aimed to examine three different implant types biomechanically in our study. Methods: Ovine tibiae undergoing medial open-wedge high tibial osteotomy were fixed in vitro with three different implants using an angular wedge plate, a metal block plate and an external fixator system. The fixed ovine tibiae were subjected to axial tensile, axial loading and three-point bending tests in a test machine. All biomechanical tests were repeated five times, the maximum and minimum values were ignored, and the average values of the remaining three test results were taken into account. The test results were interpreted after converted into force-elongation curves in Trapezium-X software. Findings: Biomechanical test results revealed some differences between implant types. While the metal block plate had the highest axial tensile strength value, it was the fixation group showing the lowest strength in axial load tests. The used fixator system was the highest strength in axial load tests and the lowest strength in axial tensile tests. Interpretation: Considering the clinically significant forces related to the biomechanical stability of the three different implants used for high tibial osteotomy, the fixator system would appear to be slightly superior, although it should be noted that torsional forces, as well as parameters that could change in living tissue, might affect the results.
dc.identifier.articlenumber105722
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2022.105722
dc.identifier.eissn1879-1271
dc.identifier.issn0268-0033
dc.identifier.pmid35863144
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85134268559
dc.identifier.urihttps://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/munzur/2720
dc.identifier.volume98
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000886385000002
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier Ltd
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Biomechanics
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subjectBiomechanics
dc.subjectFixation
dc.subjectMedial open-wedge osteotomy
dc.subjectProximal tibial osteotomy
dc.subjectvarus knees
dc.subject.classificationEngineering, Biomedical
dc.subject.classificationOrthopedics
dc.subject.classificationSport Sciences
dc.subject.classificationEngineering
dc.subject.otherAnimals
dc.subject.otherBiomechanical Phenomena
dc.subject.otherBone Plates
dc.subject.otherHumans
dc.subject.otherKnee Joint
dc.subject.otherOsteoarthritis, Knee
dc.subject.otherOsteotomy
dc.subject.otherSheep
dc.subject.otherTibia
dc.subject.otherBending tests
dc.subject.otherBiomechanics
dc.subject.otherLoad testing
dc.subject.otherSoftware testing
dc.subject.otherTensile strength
dc.subject.otherTensile testing
dc.subject.otherBiomechanical studies
dc.subject.otherBiomechanical tests
dc.subject.otherFixation
dc.subject.otherHigh tibial osteotomies
dc.subject.otherMedial open-wedge osteotomy
dc.subject.otherMetal blocks
dc.subject.otherProximal tibial osteotomy
dc.subject.otherStudy comparisons
dc.subject.otherTibial osteotomy
dc.subject.otherVarus knee
dc.subject.otherArticle
dc.subject.othercomparative study
dc.subject.othercontrolled study
dc.subject.otherhuman
dc.subject.otherin vitro study
dc.subject.otherloading test
dc.subject.otheropening wedge high tibial osteotomy
dc.subject.otherstatistical analysis
dc.subject.othertibia osteotomy
dc.subject.otheranimal
dc.subject.otherbone plate
dc.subject.otherknee
dc.subject.otherknee osteoarthritis
dc.subject.otherprocedures
dc.subject.otherAxial loads
dc.titleA biomechanical study: Comparison of three different implant options in high Tibial osteotomy
dc.typeArticle
rdl.citation.scopus0
rdl.citation.wos0
rdl.departmentDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Bingöl State Hospital, Bingöl, Turkey
rdl.departmentDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Firat University, 23190 Elazig, Turkey
rdl.departmentDepartment of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering, College of Engineering, Munzur University, Tunceli, Turkey
rdl.departmentDepartment of Medical Biochemistry, Public Health Lab, Malatya, Turkey
rdl.oa.statusgreen
rdl.oa.statusclosed
rdl.scopus.quartileQ2
rdl.source.indexSCOPUS
rdl.source.indexWOS
rdl.source.indexPUBMED
rdl.wos.indexScience Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)