A comparative cadaveric biomechanical analysis of the differences between dynamic external traction devices for PIP joint fracture dislocation.

Purpose: No study in the literature compares different external distractors for PIPJ injury. We compared a device described by Suzuki et al and another by Hynes & Giddins in non-injured cadaveric fingers. Main outcome measures were articular space and PIPJ flexion resistance. Methods: Thirty-t...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Stephanie Thibaudeau, Julian Diaz-Abele, Mario Luc
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: McGill University 2020-07-01
Series:McGill Journal of Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://mjm.mcgill.ca/article/view/89
id doaj-d0442544ffe34fb786a5bf2bbedcee56
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d0442544ffe34fb786a5bf2bbedcee562020-11-25T03:52:07ZengMcGill UniversityMcGill Journal of Medicine1715-81252020-07-01161A comparative cadaveric biomechanical analysis of the differences between dynamic external traction devices for PIP joint fracture dislocation.Stephanie Thibaudeau0Julian Diaz-Abele1Mario Luc2McGill University University of PennsylvaniaMcGill University University of ManitobaMcGill University Purpose: No study in the literature compares different external distractors for PIPJ injury. We compared a device described by Suzuki et al and another by Hynes & Giddins in non-injured cadaveric fingers. Main outcome measures were articular space and PIPJ flexion resistance. Methods: Thirty-two Thiel embalmed fingers were used. The elastics based model was performed with 3 and 5 elastics per side (3E and 5E); the 2-pin model used no elastics (2P). Articular distraction of each device was measured using x-ray imaging. The force required to flex the PIP joint to 45˚ and 90˚ in each group was measured with a dynamometer. Main findings: The articular distraction was statistically significant for all groups. The difference in articular distraction was significant in the AP view between groups 3E and 2P, and 5E and 2P. Flexion forces were only significant between group 5E and 2P at 90˚ flexion, but resistance was notably higher in group 2P than in groups 3E and 5E. Group 2P was more difficult to engage and often disengaged in flexion compared to groups 3E and 5E. Conclusion: All devices achieved significant articular distraction (>99% in AP) but optimal distraction has not been clinically determined and may depend on each unique fracture, hence a variable distraction device may be optimal. The 3E and 5E models can be adjusted for distraction by adding the sufficient elastics to reduce individual fractures. The increased resistance to PIP flexion found in the 2P model may limit post-op mobilization, but clinical correlation is needed.  https://mjm.mcgill.ca/article/view/89Suzuki framePIP joint fracturebiomechanical analysiscadaveric modelpin and rubber traction system
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Stephanie Thibaudeau
Julian Diaz-Abele
Mario Luc
spellingShingle Stephanie Thibaudeau
Julian Diaz-Abele
Mario Luc
A comparative cadaveric biomechanical analysis of the differences between dynamic external traction devices for PIP joint fracture dislocation.
McGill Journal of Medicine
Suzuki frame
PIP joint fracture
biomechanical analysis
cadaveric model
pin and rubber traction system
author_facet Stephanie Thibaudeau
Julian Diaz-Abele
Mario Luc
author_sort Stephanie Thibaudeau
title A comparative cadaveric biomechanical analysis of the differences between dynamic external traction devices for PIP joint fracture dislocation.
title_short A comparative cadaveric biomechanical analysis of the differences between dynamic external traction devices for PIP joint fracture dislocation.
title_full A comparative cadaveric biomechanical analysis of the differences between dynamic external traction devices for PIP joint fracture dislocation.
title_fullStr A comparative cadaveric biomechanical analysis of the differences between dynamic external traction devices for PIP joint fracture dislocation.
title_full_unstemmed A comparative cadaveric biomechanical analysis of the differences between dynamic external traction devices for PIP joint fracture dislocation.
title_sort comparative cadaveric biomechanical analysis of the differences between dynamic external traction devices for pip joint fracture dislocation.
publisher McGill University
series McGill Journal of Medicine
issn 1715-8125
publishDate 2020-07-01
description Purpose: No study in the literature compares different external distractors for PIPJ injury. We compared a device described by Suzuki et al and another by Hynes & Giddins in non-injured cadaveric fingers. Main outcome measures were articular space and PIPJ flexion resistance. Methods: Thirty-two Thiel embalmed fingers were used. The elastics based model was performed with 3 and 5 elastics per side (3E and 5E); the 2-pin model used no elastics (2P). Articular distraction of each device was measured using x-ray imaging. The force required to flex the PIP joint to 45˚ and 90˚ in each group was measured with a dynamometer. Main findings: The articular distraction was statistically significant for all groups. The difference in articular distraction was significant in the AP view between groups 3E and 2P, and 5E and 2P. Flexion forces were only significant between group 5E and 2P at 90˚ flexion, but resistance was notably higher in group 2P than in groups 3E and 5E. Group 2P was more difficult to engage and often disengaged in flexion compared to groups 3E and 5E. Conclusion: All devices achieved significant articular distraction (>99% in AP) but optimal distraction has not been clinically determined and may depend on each unique fracture, hence a variable distraction device may be optimal. The 3E and 5E models can be adjusted for distraction by adding the sufficient elastics to reduce individual fractures. The increased resistance to PIP flexion found in the 2P model may limit post-op mobilization, but clinical correlation is needed. 
topic Suzuki frame
PIP joint fracture
biomechanical analysis
cadaveric model
pin and rubber traction system
url https://mjm.mcgill.ca/article/view/89
work_keys_str_mv AT stephaniethibaudeau acomparativecadavericbiomechanicalanalysisofthedifferencesbetweendynamicexternaltractiondevicesforpipjointfracturedislocation
AT juliandiazabele acomparativecadavericbiomechanicalanalysisofthedifferencesbetweendynamicexternaltractiondevicesforpipjointfracturedislocation
AT marioluc acomparativecadavericbiomechanicalanalysisofthedifferencesbetweendynamicexternaltractiondevicesforpipjointfracturedislocation
AT stephaniethibaudeau comparativecadavericbiomechanicalanalysisofthedifferencesbetweendynamicexternaltractiondevicesforpipjointfracturedislocation
AT juliandiazabele comparativecadavericbiomechanicalanalysisofthedifferencesbetweendynamicexternaltractiondevicesforpipjointfracturedislocation
AT marioluc comparativecadavericbiomechanicalanalysisofthedifferencesbetweendynamicexternaltractiondevicesforpipjointfracturedislocation
_version_ 1724484204120506368