Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Dec;107(4):397-403.
doi: 10.1007/s12306-023-00782-1. Epub 2023 Apr 8.

Mechanical evaluation of the effect of the rod to rod distance on the stiffness of uniplanar external fixator frames

B Pourabbas  1 , J Emad  1 , J Dehghani  2 , S Heidari  1 , A R Vosoughi  3
Affiliations

Mechanical evaluation of the effect of the rod to rod distance on the stiffness of uniplanar external fixator frames

B Pourabbas et al. Musculoskelet Surg. 2023 Dec.

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the effect of the rod-to-rod distance on the mechanical stability of single-rod and double-rod external fixator frames.

Methods: Four different constructs, one single-rod and three double-rod constructs with different rod-rod distances, were subjected to the axial, bending, and torsional forces. The stiffness of different configurations was calculated.

Results: Single-rod configuration had statistically the lowest stiffness when subjected to the axial, bending, and torsional forces. Maximum stiffness against the axial and anterior-posterior bending forces was achieved when the rod-rod distance was adjusted to 50 mm (halfway between the first rod and the end of the Schanz pins). There was no statistically significant difference in lateral bending stiffness among different double-rod configurations (p value: 0.435). The maximum stiffness against torsional forces was achieved when the rod-rod distance was adjusted to 100 mm (the second rod at the end of the Schanz pins).

Conclusion: Double-rod uniplanar external fixator frames are significantly stiffer than the single-rod constructs, and however, the rod-rod distance can significantly affect the construct stiffness. We found that a frame with 50 mm rod-rod distance was the optimum fixator among tested configurations that allowed a balance between axial, bending, and torsional stiffness of the construct.

Keywords: External fixator; Fracture fixation; Hardness; Mechanical tests.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. O’Brien PJ (2003) Fracture fixation in patients having multiple injuries. Can J Surg 46:124–128 - PubMed - PMC
    1. Pape HC, Giannoudis P, Krettek C (2002) The timing of fracture treatment in polytrauma patients: relevance of damage control orthopedic surgery. Am J Surg 183:622–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9610(02)00865-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zeljko B, Lovrć Z, Amć E (2006) War injuries of the extremities: twelve-year follow-up data. Mil Med 171:55–57 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tuttle MS, Smith WR, Williams AE, Agudelo JF, Hartshorn CJ, Moore EE et al (2009) Safety and efficacy of damage control external fixation versus early definitive stabilization for femoral shaft fractures in the multiple-injured patient. J Trauma 67:602–605. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3181aa21c0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kong H, Sabharwal S (2014) External fixation for closed pediatric femoral shaft fractures: where are we now? Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:3814–3822. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3554-5 - DOI - PubMed - PMC