Biomechanical Comparison of Polyaxial and Uniaxial Locking Plate Fixation in a Proximal Tibial Gap Model

Abstract

This study demonstrates that this unique polyaxial locking plate mechanism, when tested in various constructs, exhibits similar biomechanical performance regarding stiffness, strength to failure, and resistance to plastic deformation when compared with uniaxial locking plates. The polyaxial locking plate with an angled screw was stiffest and had the greatest load to failure. The polyaxial locking plate alone tested similar to the LISS. In addition, the benefit of the angled screw for biomechanical stability is demonstrated.

Comparison of the pre-shaped anatomical locking plate of 3.5 mm versus 4.5 mm for the treatment of tibial plateau fractures

“…For Estes et al [19], there is no difference axially between the assembly Bfully locked^and the Bmixed type of assembly^. For Cullen et al [20], the use of poly-axial locking screws offered better rigidity and better resistance to rupture. Finally, Lindeque and Baldini [21] compared different locking systems, and concluded that the Synthes® and DePuy® systems had better resistance to wear in contrast to the Zimmer® system, but that the DePuy® system had a resistance to rupture better than the other two.…”

What is the underlying mechanism for the failure mode observed in the proximal femoral locking compression plate? A biomechanical study

“…Currently, new plates with the application of technologies for polyaxial angle-stable screw locking are [ ( F i g . _ 5 ) T D $ F I G ] available to enhance variable-angle targeting of the screws and address the problem of screw disengagement and misangulation [26][27][28].…”

Single cycle to failure in bending of three titanium polyaxial locking plates

“…Whilst the versatility of polyaxial systems is undisputed, the biomechanical advantages are still a matter for debate. In two biomechanical studies, it was demonstrated that a polyaxial system, with the same plate characteristics, supposedly has mechanical superiority in axial and torsional loading, exhibiting higher loads to failure compared to a monoaxial system (24,25). Other authors instead obtained identical results for cyclic and fatigue tests, independent of the use of monoaxial or polyaxial locking systems (26).…”