In vitro comparison of two centrally threaded, positive-profile transfixation pin designs for use in third metacarpal bones in horses

Kirstin A. Bubeck Orthopedic Research Laboratory, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, MA 01536.

Search for other papers by Kirstin A. Bubeck in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 Dr med vet
,
José M. García-Lopez Orthopedic Research Laboratory, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, MA 01536.

Search for other papers by José M. García-Lopez in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 VMD
,
Thomas M. Jenei Orthopedic Research Laboratory, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, MA 01536.

Search for other papers by Thomas M. Jenei in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
, and
Louise S. Maranda Department of Environmental and Population Health, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, MA 01536.

Search for other papers by Louise S. Maranda in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD

Abstract

Objective—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).

Sample Population—30 pairs of third metacarpal bones (MC3s) from adult equine cadavers.

Procedures—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.

Conclusion and Clinical Relevance—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.

Abstract

Objective—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).

Sample Population—30 pairs of third metacarpal bones (MC3s) from adult equine cadavers.

Procedures—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.

Conclusion and Clinical Relevance—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.

Contributor Notes

Supported by the Companion Animal Health Fund at Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine.

Presented as a poster at the American College of Veterinary Surgeons Symposium, San Diego, October 2008, and in part as an oral presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Veterinary Orthopedic Society, Steamboat Springs, Colo, March 2009.

The authors thank Andrew Cunningham for assistance with image acquisition and Harold Wotton for assistance developing the jigs used for testing.

Address correspondence to Dr. Bubeck (kirstin.bubeck@tufts.edu).
  • 1.

    Nemeth FBack W. The use of the walking cast to repair fractures in horses and ponies. Equine Vet J 1991;23:3236.

  • 2.

    Joyce JLBaxter GMSarrafian TL, et al.Use of transfixation pin cast to treat adult horses with comminuted phalangeal fractures: 20 cases (1993–2003). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006;229:725730.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Lescun TBMcClure SRWard MP, et al.Evaluation of transfixation casting for treatment of third metacarpal, third metatarsal, and phalangeal fractures in horses: 37 cases (1994–2004). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2007;230:13401349.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Nunamaker DMNash RA. A tapered-sleeve transcortical pin external skeletal fixation device for use in horses: development, application, and experience. Vet Surg 2008;37:725732.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Egger ELHistand MBBlass CE, et al.Effect of fixation pin insertion on the bone-pin interface. Vet Surg 1986;15:246252.

  • 6.

    McClure SRHonnas CMWatkins JP. Managing equine fractures with external skeletal fixation. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1995;17:10541063.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Aron DNToombs JPHollingsworth SC. Primary treatment of severe fractures by external skeletal fixation: threaded pins compared with smooth pins. J Am Assoc Hosp Assoc 1986;22:659670.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Matthews LSGreen MDGoldstein SA. The thermal effect of skeletal fixation-Pin insertion in bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984;66:10771083.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Wikenheiser MAMarkel MDLewallen DG, et al.Thermal response and torque resistance of five cortical half-pins under simulated insertion technique. J Orthop Res 1995;13:615619.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Clary EMRoe SC. In vitro biomechanical and histological assessment of pilot hole diameter for positive-profile external skeletal fixation pins in canine tibiae. Vet Surg 1996;25:453462.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Auer JA. Principles of fracture repair. In: Auer JAStick JA, eds. Equine surgery. 3rd ed. St Louis: Saunders Elsevier, 2006;10001029.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Morisset SMcClure SRHillberry BM, et al.In vitro comparison of the use of two large-animal, centrally threaded, positiveprofile transfixation pin designs in the equine third metacarpal bone. Am J Vet Res 2000;61:12981303.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Clary EMRoe SC. Enhancing external skeletal fixation pin performance: consideration of the pin-bone interface. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1995;8:18.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    McClure SRHillberry BMFisher KE. In vitro comparison of metaphyseal and diaphyseal placement of centrally threaded, positive-profile transfixation pins in the equine third metacarpal bone. Am J Vet Res 2000;61:13041308.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Zaruby JFHurtig MBFinlay JB, et al.Studies on the external fixator pin-bone interface: the effect of pin design and pin cooling in an in vivo sheep tibia model. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1995;8:2031.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Toews ARBailey JVTownsend HG, et al.Effect of feed rate and drill speed on temperatures in equine cortical bone. Am J Vet Res 1999;60:942944.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Matthews LSHirsch C. Temperatures measured in human cortical bone when drilling. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1972;54:297308.

  • 18.

    Lundskog J. Heart and bone tissue. An experimental investigation of the thermal properties of bone tissue and threshold levels for thermal injury. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1972;9:7274.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Eriksson ARAlbrektsson T. Temperature threshold levels for heat-induced bone tissue injury: a vital-microscopic study in the rabbit. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:101107.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Sedlin EDHirsch C. Factors affecting the determination of the physical properties of femoral cortical bone. Acta Orthop Scand 1966;37:2948.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Davidson SRHJames DF. Drilling in bone: modeling heat generation and temperature distribution. J Biomech Eng 2003;125:305314.

  • 22.

    Schmitt WWeber HJJahn D, et al.Ein Versuch zur theroetischen Temperaturermittlung im Schneidebereich bei Bohrungen in kortikalem Knochen. Biomed Tech (Berl) 1989;34:5356.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Zaruby JFHurtig MBFinlay JB, et al.The effect of external fixator pin geometry and dynamic loading on bone remodeling at the pin-bone interface (PBI), in an in vivo sheep tibia model. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1995;8:919.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Aron DNToombs JP. Update on principles of external skeletal fixation. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 1984;6:845858.

  • 25.

    McDonald DEPalmer RHHulse DA, et al.Holding power of threaded external skeletal fixation pins in the near and far cortices of cadaveric canine tibiae. Vet Surg 1994;23:488493.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement