Evaluation of a simple and low-cost external fixator

Goh, James Cho Hong; Thambyah, Ashvin; Ghani, A. Noor; Bose, K.

doi:10.1016/s0020-1383(96)00149-0

Cited by 17 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One way around this is to reduce the cost of manufacturing a typical fixator so that it is more affordable. This could be brought about by varying the choice of material to make the fixator, the overall product finish, and overall complexity of the design [6]. With all these considerations in mind, the new low-cost external fixators, 304 L stainless steel external fixator (biplanar and unilateral) was specifically designed for the treatment of simple and comminuted patterns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical study of a low-cost external fixator for diaphyseal fractures of long bones

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: External fixation improves open fracture management in emerging countries. However, sophisticated models are often expensive and unavailable. We assessed the biomechanical properties of a low-cost external fixation system in comparison with the Hoffmann® 3 system, as a reference. Methods: Transversal, oblique, and comminuted fractures were created in the diaphysis of tibia sawbones. Six external fixators were tested in three modes of loading-axial compression, medio-lateral (ML) bending, and torsion-in order to determine construction stiffness. The fixator construct implies two uniplanar (UUEF1, UUEF2) depending the pin-rods fixation system and two biplanar (UBEF1, UBEF2) designs based on different bar to bar connections. The designed low-cost fixators were compared to a Hoffmann® 3 fixator single rod (H3-SR) and double rod (H3-DR). Twenty-seven constructs were stabilized with UUEF1, UUEF2, and H3-SR (nine constructs each). Nine constructs were stabilized with UBEF1, UBEF2, and H3-DR (three constructs each). Results: UUEF2 was significantly stiffer than H3-SR (p < 0.001) in axial compression for oblique fractures and UUEF1 was significantly stiffer than H3-SR (p = 0.009) in ML bending for transversal fractures. Both UUEFs were significantly stiffer than H3-SR in axial compression and torsion (p < 0.05), and inferior to H3-SR in ML bending, for comminuted fractures. In the same fracture pattern, UBEFs were significantly stiffer than H3-DR (p = 0.001) in axial compression and torsion, while only UBEF1 was significantly stiffer than H3-DR in ML bending (p = 0.013). Conclusions: The results demonstrated that the stiffness of the UUEF and UBEF device compares to the reference fixator and may be helpful in maintaining fracture reduction. Fatigue testing and clinical assessment must be conducted to ensure that the objective of bone healing is achievable with such low-cost devices.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical study of a low-cost external fixator for diaphyseal fractures of long bones

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…About 350 g of RP are needed to build 2 connecting bars and cost currently approximately 15 Euros (U.S. $15). The high cost of some of the commercially available ESF devices makes them unaffordable for some pet owners and represents a challenge in ESF design in human and in veterinary medicine 54 . RP connecting bars constitute an economical yet valid alternative for the veterinarian.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a Nontoxic Rigid Polymer as Connecting Bar in External Skeletal Fixators

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various methods have been used in the management of radius and ulna fractures; however, external fixation methods are primarily suggested (Charles & David, 1985). Although, the use of simple external fixations are becoming more and more popular for the treatment of fractures in animals, their potentials have not been fully maximized due to the fact that the current commercially available external fixation devices are complex and expensive (Goh et al, 1997, Bada et al, 2017. The cost of treatment and medical care is an important issue all over the world (Emara et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness of pin-in-fibreglass cast versus Kirschner-Ehmer type I external skeletal fixator in the management of transverse radius-ulna fractures in dogs

Bada¹,

Bappah²,

Lawal³

et al. 2018

Sokoto J. Vet. Sc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cost of medical care is an important issue all over the world. With worsening global economy and the poverty inherent in low earning economies in the third world countries, economic considerations have always remained a major determinant factor in the choice of treatment. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of pin-in-fibreglass cast fixator (PFCF) was comparatively evaluated against a commercially available fixator (Kirschner-Ehmer type I external fixator) (KESF) in the management of induced closed transverse mid-shaft radius-ulna fractures in dogs. Four adult (2 males and 2 females) dogs with closed transverse mid-shaft radius-ulna fractures were used for this study. These dogs were randomly assigned to two groups (A and B) with each group made up of two dogs. Radius-ulna fractures were created in all the dogs under injectable anaesthesia as follows: Group A; PFCF, and Group B; KESF. A cost analysis was performed using the duration of operative and post-operative procedures, duration of morbidity period, direct and indirect labour cost, and cost of dog-hour lost during the morbidity period as economic indices. The overall duration of the operative and the entire post-operative procedures were 5.5±0.14 and 22±0.

show abstract

Evaluation of a simple and low-cost external fixator

Cited by 17 publications

References 14 publications

Biomechanical study of a low-cost external fixator for diaphyseal fractures of long bones

Biomechanical study of a low-cost external fixator for diaphyseal fractures of long bones

Evaluation of a Nontoxic Rigid Polymer as Connecting Bar in External Skeletal Fixators

Cost-effectiveness of pin-in-fibreglass cast versus Kirschner-Ehmer type I external skeletal fixator in the management of transverse radius-ulna fractures in dogs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About