How Does the Stress in the Fixation Device Change during Different Stages of Bone Healing in the Treatment of Fractures? A Finite Element Study of External Fixation for Tibial Fractures

Abstract

Background: Although the specific relationship between the stress changes in the external fixator during tibial fracture treatment and the bone healing process remains unclear, it is believed that stress variations in the external fixator scaffold can, to a certain extent, reflect the progress of tibial healing.

Objective: This study aims to propose a non-invasive method for assessing the degree of fracture healing by monitoring the changes in stress transmission, the locations of stress-sensitive points, and displacement in the external fixator-tibia system during the healing process of tibial fractures.

Methods: In this study, finite element models of tibial fractures at various healing stages were developed. Physiological conditions, including axial, torsional, and bending loads on the tibia, were simulated to evaluate stress and strain within the external scaffold-tibia system under normal physiological loading conditions.

Results: The results indicate variations in the stress distribution between the external fixator and the tibia during different stages of healing. In the early phase of fracture healing, the external fixator plays a crucial role as the primary load-bearing unit under all three loading conditions. As the fracture healing progresses, the stress on the tibia gradually increases, concentrating on the medial part of the tibia under axial and torsional loading, and at the upper and lower ends, as well as the central part of the anterior and posterior tibia during bending loading. The stress at the callus gradually increases, while micro-movements decrease. The stress within the external bracket gradually decreases, with a tendency for the connecting rod to transfer stress towards the screws. Throughout the fracture healing process, the location of maximum stress in the external fixator remains unchanged. Under axial and torsional loading, the maximum stress is located at the intersection of the lowest screw and the bone cortex, while under bending loading, it is at the intersection of the second screw and the connecting rod.

Conclusion: During the bone healing process, stress is transferred between the external fixation frame and the bone. As bone healing advances, the stress on the connecting rods and screws of the external fixation frame decreases, and the amplitude of stress changes diminishes. When complete and robust fusion is achieved, stress variations stabilize, and the location of maximum stress on the external fixation frame remains unchanged. The intersections of the lowest screw and the bone cortex, as well as the second screw and the connecting rod, can serve as sensitive points for monitoring the degree of bone healing.

Keywords

Deformation / Finite element analysis / Stress / Tibial fracture / Unilateral external fixators

References

[1] Elniel AR, Giannoudis PV. Open fractures of the lower extremity: current management and clinical outcomes. EFORT Open Rev. 2018; 3: 316–325.

[2] Lin J, Liu H, Liu P, Yang H. External fixators for open fractures of tibia and fibula in patients with haemophilia a. Haemophilia. 2015; 21: e51–e53.

[3] Kouassi KJ-E, Akobé JR, Kouassi AA, Fonkoué L, Detrembleur C, Kodo M, et al. Locally developed external fixators as definitive treatment of open tibia diaphyseal fractures: a clinical prospective study conducted in Ivory Coast. Int Orthop. 2022; 46: 79–87.

[4] Winkler D, Goudie ST, Court-Brown CM. The changing epidemiology of open fractures in vehicle occupants, pedestrians, motorcyclists and cyclists. Injury. 2018; 49: 208–212.

[5] Sarmiento A, Latta LL. 450 closed fractures of the distal third of the tibia treated with a functional brace. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 428: 261–271.

[6] Daas S, Jlidi M, Baghdadi N, Bouaicha W, Mallek K, Lamouchi M, et al. Risk factors for malunion of distal tibia fractures treated by intramedullary nailing. J Orthop Surg Res. 2024; 19: 5.

[7] Metsemakers W-J, Kortram K, Ferreira N, et al. Fracture-related outcome study for operatively treated tibia shaft fractures (F.R.O.S.T.): registry rationale and design. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021; 22: 57.

[8] Lack WD, Starman JS, Seymour R, Bosse M, Karunakar M, Sims S, et al. Any cortical bridging predicts healing of Tibial shaft fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96: 1066–1072.

[9] Protopappas VC, Vavva MG, Fotiadis DI, Malizos KN. Ultrasonic monitoring of bone fracture healing. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2008; 55: 1243–1255.

[10] Chachan S, Tudu B, Sahu B. Ultrasound monitoring of fracture healing: is this the end of radiography in fracture follow-ups? J Orthop Trauma. 2015; 29: e133–e138.

[11] Cattermole HC, Cook JE, Fordham JN, Muckle DS, Cunningham JL. Bone mineral changes during Tibia1Fracture healing. Clinical orthopaedics and related research (1976–2007). Volume 339. Philadelphia, PA: LWW; 1997. p. 190–196.

[12] Gandhi S, Rabadiya B. Bone scan in detection of biological activity in nonhypertrophic fracture nonunion. Indian J Nucl Med. 2017; 32: 326–329.

[13] Lee D, Shaker G, Augustine R. Preliminary study: monitoring of healing stages of bone fracture utilizing UWB pulsed radar technique. 2018 18th international symposium on antenna technology and applied electromagnetics (ANTEM). Waterloo, ON: IEEE; 2018. p. 1–2.

[14] Claes L, Grass R, Schmickal T, Kisse B, Eggers C, Gerngro H, et al. Monitoring and healing analysis of 100 tibial shaft fractures. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2002; 387: 146–152.

[15] Chatterjee S, Chatterjee S. (1AD) Finite Element Analysis in Biomechanics. Available from: https://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?doi=10.4018/978-1-7998-9078-2.ch002. https://www.igi-global.com/gateway/chapter/www.igi-global.com/gateway/chapter/300487 Accessed 23 Jul 2024.

[16] Marqués R, Melchor J, Sánchez-Montesinos I, Roda O, Rus G, Hernández-Cortés P. Biomechanical finite element method model of the proximal carpal row and experimental validation. Front Physiol. 2022; 12: 749372.

[17] Abdul Wahab AH, Wui NB, Abdul Kadir MR, Ramlee MH. Biomechanical evaluation of three different configurations of external fixators for treating distal third tibia fracture: finite element analysis in axial, bending and torsion load. Comput Biol Med. 2020; 127: 104062.

[18] Li J, Zhao X, Hu X, Tao C, Ji R. A finite element analysis for monitoring the healing progression of fixator-bone system under three loading conditions. Biomed Mater Eng. 2018; 29: 473–483.

[19] Di Puccio F, Curreli C, Gagliani M, Mattei L. In silico re-foundation of strain-based healing assessment of fractures treated with an external fixator. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2021; 121: 104619.

[20] Steiner M, Claes L, Ignatius A, Simon U, Wehner T. Disadvantages of interfragmentary shear on fracture healing—mechanical insights through numerical simulation. J Orthop Res. 2014; 32: 865–872.

[21] Chen F, Huang X, Ya Y, Ma F, Qian Z, Shi J, et al. Finite element analysis of intramedullary nailing and double locking plate for treating extra-articular proximal tibial fractures. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018; 13: 12.

[22] Gao S, Yao QC, Geng L, Lu J, Li M, An K, et al. A finite element analysis of the supportive effect of a new type of rotary support plate on lateral tibial plateau fractures. Ann Transl Med. 2022; 10: 1020.

[23] Li J, Zhao X, Hu X, Tao C, Ji R. A theoretical analysis and finite element simulation of fixator–bone system stiffness on healing progression. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2018; 16: 115–125.

[24] Lewis GS, Mischler D, Wee H, Reid JS, Varga P. Finite element analysis of fracture fixation. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2021; 19: 403–416.

[25] Tseng ZJ, Mcnitt-Gray JL, Flashner H, Wang X, Enciso R. Model sensitivity and use of the comparative finite element method in mammalian jaw mechanics: mandible performance in the Gray wolf. PLoS One. 2011; 6: e19171.

[26] Blažević D, Kodvanj J, Adamović P, Vidović D, Trobonjača Z, Sabalić S. Comparison between external locking plate fixation and conventional external fixation for extraarticular proximal tibial fractures: a finite element analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022; 17: 16.

[27] Seide K, Weinrich N, Wenzl ME, Wolter D, Jürgens C. Three-dimensional load measurements in an external fixator. J Biomech. 2004; 37: 1361–1369.

[28] Grasa J, Gómez-Benito MJ, González-Torres LA, Asiaín D, Quero F, García-Aznar JM. Monitoring in vivo load transmission through an external fixator. Ann Biomed Eng. 2010; 38: 605–612.

[29] Shen Y-W, Yang Y, Liu H, Qiu Y, Li M, Ma L-T, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of intervertebral fusion process after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element study. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022; 10: 842382.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.