Angulation and Translation Capabilities of a Minimized Orthopedic Hexapod Ortho-SUV Frame: An Experimental Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17140/ORTOJ-7-123Keywords:
External fixation, Deformity correction, Orthopedic hexapod, Reduction capabilitiesAbstract
Introduction
Orthopedic hexapods demonstrated effectiveness and accuracy in deformity correction of limbs in both adults and children.
Previous studies demonstrated the best reduction capabilities of the orthopedic hexapod Ortho-SUV Frame (OSF) versus other
models of this group of external fixation devices. Minimized version of this hexapod (minimized Ortho-SUV Frame (OSFm))
was created to reduce common for this group disadvantages: large bulkiness and weight and limitation on working with “short
segments”. However, the reduction capabilities of the OSFm have not yet been studied.
Aim
To evaluate translation and angulation capabilities of OSFm with standard struts size and to compare results to OSF with short
struts size.
Materials and Methods
The experimental study was performed using plastic models of the tibia with osteotomy at the middle third of the shaft. Proximal
and distal bone fragments were fixed with one-ring modules. The reduction capabilities of OSFm in the first series and OSF in the
second series of the experiment were studied. According to the method of fixing the struts to the rings, experiments were divided
into three groups: directly to the ring, using straight plates, and using Z-shaped plates. Translation and angulation capabilities were
evaluated by the maximum displacement of the distal bone fragment relative to the proximal one until any of the struts reached
its minimum or maximum possible length.
Results
In translation OSFm outperforms OSF by 2.8-9.5% fixed the struts directly to the rings, by 4.8-9.7% using straight plates, and by
27.3-29.3% using Z-plates. In angulation OSFm with struts fixed directly to the rings outperforms OSF by 33.9-55.4%, by 36.9-
47.3% using straight plates, and by 29.6-36% using Z-plates.
Conclusion
OSFm exceeds OSF in translation and angulation capabilities in all series of experiment. Distraction and rotation capabilities and
the bone fragments fixation rigidity should be evaluated as further research to prove application of OSFm as a possible better
candidate for deformity correction of limbs in children and foot deformity correction.
References
Paley D. History and science behind the six-axis correction ex-ternal fixation devices in orthopaedic surgery. Operative Techniques in Orthopaedics. 2011; 21(2): 125-128. doi: 10.1053/j.oto.2011.01.011
Sessa P, Biancucci G, Dell’Unto A, Massobrio M. History and evolution of hexapod external fixators. In: Massobrio M, Mora R, Submit your article to this journal | https://openventio.org/submit-manuscript/ 4 Solomin LN, et al eds. Hexapod External Fixator Systems. NY, USA: Springer Cham; 2021: 1-10. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-40667-7_1
Solomin LN. Hexapod external fixators in ankle and foot de-formity correction. In: Massobrio M, Mora R, eds. Hexapod Exter-nal Fixator Systems. NY, USA: Springer Cham; 2021: 153-197. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-40667-7_9
Riganti S, Coppa V, Nasto LA, et al. Treatment of complex foot deformities with hexapod external fixator in growing children and young adult patients. Foot and Ankle Surgery. 2019; 25(5): 623-629. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2018.07.001
Ukhanov KA. Optimization of External Fixation in Midfoot and Hindfoot Deformity Correction. [dissertation]. Saint Petersburg, Russia: St. Petersburg State University; 2017; 279.
Takata M, Vilensky VA, Tsuchiya H, Solomin LN. Foot de-formity correction with hexapod external fixator, the Ortho-SUV Frame™. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2013; 52(3): 324-330. doi: 10.1053/j. jfas.2013.01.013
Cherkashin AM, Samchukov ML, Birkholts F. Treatment strat-egies and frame configurations in the management of foot and ankle deformities. Clin Podiatr Med Surg.. 2018; 35(4): 423-442. doi: 10.1016/j.cpm.2018.05.003
Mora R, Pedrotti L, Bertani B, Tuvo G, Maccabruni A. Prob-lems, challenge, complications in hexapod external fixation sys-tems. Contraindications. In: Massobrio M, Mora R, eds. Hexapod External Fixator Systems. NY, USA: Springer Cham. 2021: 239-246. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-40667-7_11
Small Bone Hardware Quick Reference Guide. ORTHEX Small Bone Circular Fixator. https://www.orthopediatrics.com/prod-ucts/orthex-small-bone-circular-fixator/. Accessed April 5, 2022.
Messner J, Chhina H, Davidson S, Abad J, Cooper A. Clinical outcomes in pediatric tibial lengthening and deformity correction: A comparison of the Taylor Spatial Frame with the Orthex Hexa-pod System. Journal of Children’s Orthopaedics. 2021; 15(2): 114-121. doi: 10.1302/1863-2548.15.200165
Skomoroshko PV. Optimization of the Treatment of Patients with Diaphyseal Deformities of the Femur Based on the Use of an Orthopedic Hexapod. [dissertation]. Saint Petersburg, Russia: St. Petersburg State University; 2014: 224.
Korchagin KL. Substantiation of a Differentiated Approach to the Choice of Technique for Arthrodesis of the Knee Joint in Patients with Large Knee Bone Defects. [dissertation]. Saint Petersburg, Russia: St. Peters-burg State University; 2018: 144. Brief Research Report | Volume 7 | Issue 1|
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All content published in Orthopedics Research and Traumatology (ORT) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows anyone to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt the work — including for commercial purposes — provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and source.
