...
首页> 外文期刊>Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore >A Biomechanical Study Comparing Cerclage Wiring Performed with a Power Tool versus the Manual Method
【24h】

A Biomechanical Study Comparing Cerclage Wiring Performed with a Power Tool versus the Manual Method

机译:生物力学研究比较电动工具与手动方法进行的结扎布线

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Introduction: We conducted a biomechanical study comparing cerclage wiring using a power tool with the traditional manual method. Materials and Methods: Our study consisted of 4 experimental arms based on the method of fixation and diameter of wires. The 4 arms were: 1) power tool method using 0.8 mm cerclage wires, 2) power tool method using 1.0 mm cerclage wires, 3) conventional manual method using 0.8 mm cerclage wires, and 4) conventional manual method using 1.0 mm cerclage wires. Synthetic femur bones were employed in our study. Six specimens were prepared for each arm. Each specimen was cut lengthwise and pressure sensors were placed in between. For the power tool method, while maintaining tension, wires were coiled using the Colibri power tool until just before secondary coiling occurred. For the conventional manual method, each specimen was compressed by plier twisting for 10 rounds, while maintaining tension. Cerclaging and data recording was done thrice for each specimen, giving a total of 18 readings per arm. Peak and steady-state forces were recorded. Results: There was no significant difference between the peak forces recorded between the power drill and manual methods. The steady-state forces achieved using the power tool method were significantly higher than that achieved in the manual fixation method (0.8 mm wires: 54.89N vs 27.26N, P = 0.037; 1.0 mm wires: 71.59N vs 39.66N, P = 0.025). Conclusion: The power tool method achieved a superior steady-state force of compression across the fracture site for both 0.8 mm and 1 mm wires.
机译:简介:我们进行了一项生物力学研究,比较了使用电动工具与传统手动方法进行的环扎布线。材料和方法:我们的研究包括4个基于固定和金属丝直径的实验臂。这四个臂是:1)使用0.8 mm环扎线的电动工具方法,2)使用1.0 mm环扎线的电动工具方法,3)使用0.8 mm环扎线的常规手动方法,以及4)使用1.0 mm环扎线的常规手动方法。在我们的研究中使用了合成的股骨。每个手臂准备了六个标本。沿长度方向切割每个样品,并将压力传感器置于其间。对于电动工具方法,在保持张力的同时,使用Colibri电动工具将电线绕制,直到即将发生二次绕制之前。对于传统的手动方法,在保持张力的同时,通过钳子扭曲将每个样本压缩10轮。每个样品进行三次陶瓷封装和数据记录,每只手臂总共读取18个读数。记录峰值和稳态力。结果:电钻和手动方法之间记录的峰值力之间没有显着差异。使用电动工具方法获得的稳态力明显高于手动固定方法(0.8毫米线:54.89N vs 27.26N,P = 0.037; 1.0毫米线:71.59N vs 39.66N,P = 0.025 )。结论:电动工具方法在0.8 mm和1 mm的导线上均实现了跨骨折部位的出色的稳态压缩力。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号