Study of deformations of bone regenerate under different options of osteosynthesis of lower leg bones in the case of their congenital pseudarthrosis

Authors

  • Sergij Khmyzov Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6725-0915
  • Yelizaveta Katsalap Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine
  • Mykhaylo Karpinsky Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine
  • Oleksandr Yaresko Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-598720221-249-54

Keywords:

Congenital pseudarthrosis, tibia, fibula, osteosynthesis, load, deformation, mathematical models

Abstract

Congenital pseudarthrosis of the leg bones is accompanied by its shortening and deformation. It’s still unclear what is an optimal method of surgical treatment. Objective. Using a mathematical model, to study the relative deformations of the regenerate (RDR) in the zone of pseudarthrosis bones of the lower leg under different options of osteosynthesis. Methods. The zone of nonunion was modeled of the bones of the lower leg third of tibia and 4 variants of osteosynthesis on were analysed: intramedullary rod and needle (1); rod, spoke and bone graft in the form of a block on the tibia (2) or on both (3) bones; rod, spoke and bone with a graft on both bones of the leg with wrapping titanium mesh (4). A rotationally stable and unstable rod was used. Under the influence of the load on compression and torsion determined the values of RDR in the zone of pseudarthrosis. Results. In the case of osteosynthesis of option 1, intramedullary rods of both types (due to axial mobility of their elements) do not provide minimal deformation regenerates of both bones, so there is a possibility of their growth during the growth of the patient. Bone blocks grafts (options 2 and 3) take over part of the compressive load and the level of the RDR of the bones decreases up to 20 times. Rotationally stable rod is better under conditions of torsional loads, since RDR of the tibia is reduced by 20 times. However, bone graft blocks negate this advantage, providing rotational stability of bone fragments lower legs. The use of titanium mesh provides an additional strength of fixation of fragments of both tibia bones and level RDR of bones is reduced by 10 % compared to models of osteosynthesis with a block of grafts for both loading options. Conclusions. The use of only intramedullary rods that «grow» leads to the greatest deformations of regenerates. A rod with rotational stability is better under torsional loading conditions. Blocks from bone grafts reduce the level of RDR of bones tibia to a level of less than 0.1 % for both loading options, and the titanium mesh to an additional 10 %.

Author Biographies

Sergij Khmyzov, Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv

MD, Prof. in Traumatology and Orthopaedics

Yelizaveta Katsalap, Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv

MD

References

  1. Pannier, S. (2011). Congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia. Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery & Research, 97 (7), 750–761. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2011.09.001.
  2. Crawford, A. H. (1986). Neurofibromatosis in children. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 218, 1‒60.
  3. Campanacci, M., Nicoll, E. A., & Pagella, P. (1981). The differential diagnosis of congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia. International Orthopaedics, 4(4), 283-288. doi:10.1007/bf00266070
  4. McFarland, B. (1940). 'Birth fracture' of the tibia. British Journal of Surgery, 27 (108), 706-712. doi: 10.1002/bjs.18002710809.
  5. Hefti, F., Bollini, G., Dungl, P., Fixsen, J., Grill, F., Ippolito, E., … Wientroub, S. (2000). Congenital Pseudarthrosis of the tibia: History, etiology, classification, and epidemiologic data. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, Part B, 9(1), 11-15. doi:10.1097/01202412-200001000-00003
  6. Dobbs, M. B., Rich, M. M., Gordon, E. J., Szymanski, D. A., & Schoenecker, P. L. (2004). Use of an intramedullary rod for treatment of congenital Pseudarthrosis of the tibia. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume, 86(6), 1186-1197. doi:10.2106/00004623-200406000-00010
  7. Shannon, C. E., Huser, A. J., & Paley, D. (2021). Cross-union surgery for congenital Pseudarthrosis of the tibia. Children, 8(7), 547. doi:10.3390/children8070547
  8. Eisenberg, K. A., & Vuillermin, C. B. (2019). Management of congenital Pseudoarthrosis of the tibia and fibula. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 12(3), 356-368. doi:10.1007/s12178-019-09566-2
  9. Sakamoto, A., Yoshida, T., Uchida, Y., Kojima, T., Kubota, H., & Iwamoto, Y. (2008). Long-term follow-up on the use of vascularized fibular Graft for the treatment of congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 3(1). doi:10.1186/1749-799x-3-13
  10. Masquelet, A. C., & Begue, T. (2010). The concept of induced membrane for reconstruction of long bone defects. Orthopedic Clinics of North America, 41(1), 27-37. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2009.07.011
  11. Paley, D. (2019). Congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia: Biological and biomechanical considerations to achieve union and prevent refracture. Journal of Children's Orthopaedics, 13(2), 120-133. doi:10.1302/1863-2548.13.180147
  12. Khmyzov, S., & Katsalap, Y. (2021). The current state of diagnosis and treatment of the congenital tibia pseudoarthrosis. ORTHOPAEDICS, TRAUMATOLOGY and PROSTHETICS, (3), 85-91. doi:10.15674/0030-59872021385-91
  13. Khmyzov, S., Katsalap, E., Karpinsky, M., & Yaresko, O. (2022). Mathematical modeling of the osteosynthesis of the lower leg bones using a titanium mesh for their congenital pseudoarthrosis in the lower third. TRAUMA, 22(4), 23-29. doi:10.22141/1608-1706.4.22.2021.239706
  14. Katsalap, E. S., Khmyzov, S. O., Kovalev, A. M. and others (2021). Intramedullary telescopic fixator for the treatment of fractures and defects of long bones in children with incomplete growth. Pat. 149929 UA (in Ukrainian)
  15. Cowin, S. C. (2001). Bone mechanics handbook. 2nd Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
  16. Vidal-Lesso, A., Ledesma-Orozco, E., Lesso-Arroyo, R., & Daza-Benitez, L. (2014). Mechanical characterization of femoral cartilage under unicompartimental osteoarthritis, Vol. 4 (6), 239–246.
  17. Boccaccio, A., & Pappalettere, C. (2011). Mechanobiology of fracture healing: Basic principles and applications in orthodontics and orthopaedics. In Vaclav Klika (Ed). Theoretical Biomechanics. IntechOpen. doi:10.5772/1942
  18. Vasyuk, V., Koval, O., Karpinsky, M., & Yaresko, O. (2019). Mathematical modeling of options for osteosynthesis of distal tibial metaphyseal fractures type C1. TRAUMA, 20(1), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.22141/1608-1706.1.20.2019.158666. 19. Bondarenko, S., Denisenko, S., Karpinsky, M., & Yaresko, O. (2021). Investigation of the effect of porous titanium cups on stress distribution in bone tissue (mathematical modeling). TRAUMA, 22(3), 28-37. doi:10.22141/1608-1706.3.22.2021.236320
  19. Sorokina, V. G. (1989). Marker of steels and alloys. Moscow: Mechanical Engineering. (inrussian)
  20. Zenkevich, O. K. (1978). Finite element method in technology. Moscow: Mir. (in russian)
  21. Alyamovsky, A. A. (2004). SolidWorks / COSMOSWorks. Engineering analysis by the finite element method. Moscow: DMK Press. (in russian)

Downloads

How to Cite

Khmyzov, S. ., Katsalap, Y. ., Karpinsky, M. ., & Yaresko, O. . (2023). Study of deformations of bone regenerate under different options of osteosynthesis of lower leg bones in the case of their congenital pseudarthrosis. ORTHOPAEDICS TRAUMATOLOGY and PROSTHETICS, (1-2), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-598720221-249-54

Issue

No. 1-2 (2022)

Section

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The authors retain the right of authorship of their manuscript and pass the journal the right of the first publication of this article, which automatically become available from the date of publication under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows others to freely distribute the published manuscript with mandatory linking to authors of the original research and the first publication of this one in this journal.

Authors have the right to enter into a separate supplemental agreement on the additional non-exclusive distribution of manuscript in the form in which it was published by the journal (i.e. to put work in electronic storage of an institution or publish as a part of the book) while maintaining the reference to the first publication of the manuscript in this journal.

The editorial policy of the journal allows authors and encourages manuscript accommodation online (i.e. in storage of an institution or on the personal websites) as before submission of the manuscript to the editorial office, and during its editorial processing because it contributes to productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of the published manuscript citation (see The Effect of Open Access).