• Users Online: 162
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 73-77

Intramedullary limb lengthening: Comparative mechanical testing of different devices


1 Department of Trauma and General Surgery, Bg University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
2 Department of Surgical Sciences, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa

Date of Submission11-Dec-2021
Date of Decision22-Dec-2021
Date of Acceptance23-Dec-2021
Date of Web Publication30-Jun-2022

Correspondence Address:
Nader Maai
Department of Trauma and General Surgery, Bg University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum
Germany
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jllr.jllr_42_21

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: Intramedullary limb lengthening has become more popular in the past two decades. This study aimed to investigate the mechanical properties of the various intramedullary lengthening devices currently available to orthopedic surgeons. Materials and Methods: A load cell connected to an electromechanical tensile testing machine was used to apply a bending force to nine intramedullary lengthening nails: Albizzia Ø 11 mm, intramedullary skeletal kinetic distractor Ø 10.7 mm, Precice Ø 10.7 mm, G-Nail Ø 13 mm, and Betzbone Ø 9 mm to Ø 13 mm. The force needed to deform each nail by 0.01 mm, 0.05 mm, 1 mm, and 3 mm was measured and compared. Results: The nail with the smallest diameter (Betzbone Ø 9 mm) needed the least force to deform. The nails with the biggest diameter (G-Nail Ø 13 mm and Betzbone Ø 13 mm) needed the most force to deform. Comparing similar-sized implants, nails manufactured from surgical steel or cobalt-chrome were more resistant to plastic deformation than titanium nails. Conclusion: Intramedullary lengthening device's ability to resist bending deformation depends on the diameter and material of the nail. Surgical steel and cobalt-chrome alloy nails showed higher resistant to plastic deformation when compared to titanium nails.

Keywords: Albizzia® nail, betzbone®, G-Nail®, limb lengthening, mechanical testing, Precice®


How to cite this article:
Maai N, Bernstorff MA, Koenigshausen M, Schildhauer TA, Ferreira N. Intramedullary limb lengthening: Comparative mechanical testing of different devices. J Limb Lengthen Reconstr 2022;8:73-7

How to cite this URL:
Maai N, Bernstorff MA, Koenigshausen M, Schildhauer TA, Ferreira N. Intramedullary limb lengthening: Comparative mechanical testing of different devices. J Limb Lengthen Reconstr [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Aug 9];8:73-7. Available from: https://www.jlimblengthrecon.org/text.asp?2022/8/1/73/349419




  Introduction Top


The practice of limb lengthening dates back to 1869 when Langenbeck postulated that bone growth could be stimulated by axial traction.[1] The first recorded lengthening procedure was performed by Codivilla in 1905 and consisted of an osteotomy followed by axial traction and immobilization in a Thomas splint.[2],[3] The emergence of external fixators, which allowed controlled distraction together with Gavril Ilizarov's work, led to rapid advances in the practice of limb lengthening and our understanding of the biology of distraction osteogenesis.[4]

Despite the accurate lengthening that external fixators provide, these devices are associated with high complication rates, including pin site infection, deep sepsis, neurovascular injury, joint contractures, and stiffness.[5],[6],[7],[8],[9] Refractures after fixator removal and the discomfort and psychological stress are further drawbacks to using these devices.[8],[10],[11]

To overcome these problems, internal lengthening devices have gained popularity. Alexander Bliskunov developed the first internal lengthening device in 1983.[12] Götz and Schellmann[13] further developed this concept with a hydraulic distractor nail, whereas Baumann and Harms later developed an intramedullary extension nail.[14] These developments later gave rise to the development of multiple other intramedullary lengthening devices.

In 1989, Betz and Baumgart introduced a motorized lengthening device without a telescopic principle.[15],[16] The nail functions by an internal motor connected to a subcutaneously implanted antenna activated by external radiofrequency stimulation.[8],[15] In 1988, Grammont and Guichet developed the Albizzia® telescopic nail (DePuy, Villeurbanne, France), which consisted of two telescoping tubes: a threaded outer tube and an inner rod, connected by a double-opposed ratchet mechanism.[17] By rotating the inner tube by 20°, the ratchet mechanism is unscrewed, and the nail is lengthened by 1/15 of a mm.[17] The nail then resets when the nail is rotated back to the resting position.[17] Guichet modified the Albizzia® nail and named it the G-Nail®[8] (X-os S. A., Lugano, Switzerland). Betz later modified the ratchet mechanism and direction, dimension, and design of the interlocking system and developed the Betzbone® nail (Betz Institute, Wadern, Germany) and changing the orientation of the locking holes.[8],[18] A second-generation Betzbone nail introduced the use of cobalt-chrome as a nonferrous metal instead of surgical steel.

In 2001, the intramedullary skeletal kinetic distractor (ISKD) (ISKD, Orthofix, Verona, Italy) was released, which used the same lengthening principle by rotation of a ratchet mechanism.[19] Contrary to the Albizzia® nail, only 3° to 9° of rotation was needed to perform lengthening.[8],[20] In 2009, Pool and Walker developed the Precice® (Nuvasive, San Diego, CA, USA) magnetically driven, titanium intramedullary lengthening nail, which is activated by applying an external magnetic field generator that causes a magnet inside the nail to rotate and effect lengthening.[8],[21],[22],[23]

Despite the technical advances made in the design and functioning of the intramedullary lengthening device and accurate control during lengthening and implant stability remain absolute prerequisites when performing limb lengthening, especially in the setting of bilateral lower limb lengthening. While the Albizzia® nail, G-Nail®, and Betzbone® permit full weight-bearing during lengthening, the Fitbone® and the P2 Precice® only allow partial weight-bearing (18 kg). A recent addition to the Precice® lengthening system, the Precice Stryde®, allows more weight-bearing depending on the nail diameter (10 mm allows 68 kg, 11.5 mm allows 90 kg, and 13 mm allows 113 kg).[24]

This study aimed to investigate the mechanical properties of the various intramedullary lengthening devices currently available to orthopedic surgeons.


  Materials and Methods Top


Nine intramedullary lengthening nails were used for mechanical testing: Albizzia® Ø 11 mm, ISKD® Ø 10.7 mm, Precice® Ø 10.7 mm, G-Nail® Ø 13 mm, and Betzbone® Ø 9 mm to Ø 13 mm. Of the tested nails, the Albizzia® and G-Nail® nails were manufactured from surgical steel, the ISKD® and Precice® nails from titanium, and the Betzbone® nails from cobalt-chrome.

A load cell connected to an electromechanical tensile testing machine Z600E (ZwickRoell GmbH, Ulm, Germany) was used to apply bending force on the nails. Each nail sample was placed on two 10 mm diameter supporting rods which were spaced 100 mm apart. Nails were placed so that the thickest outer diameter (female component) spanned the entire gap between the supporting rods [Figure 1]. A 12 mm diameter pushing rod applied a lateral bending force exactly the half distance between the supporting rods. The load was applied vertically at a rate of 2 mm/min until the desired deformation of each nail was reached. The force needed to deform each nail by 0.01 mm, 0.5 mm, 1 mm, and 3 mm was noted for each nail. During the first testing series, all nails were loaded to 0.1 mm deformation. Thereafter, all nails were loaded to 0.5 mm followed by 1 mm deformation. During the final testing series, all nine lengthening nails were loaded until 3 mm of deformation was reached. All tests were conducted using the same setup and in the same way.
Figure 1: Test setup

Click here to view


Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS for MAC version 27.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Ill., USA). A simple descriptive analysis was done for each nail.


  Results Top


The minimum force required to deform a lengthening nail by 0.01 mm was 1266N (Betzbone® Ø 9 mm), whereas the maximum force required to deform a nail by 3 mm was 15639N (Betzbone® Ø 13 mm) [Table 1].
Table 1: Overview of measured results

Click here to view


The resistance of nails increased with diameters. The Betzbone® Ø 9 mm needed the least amount of force to achieve 0.1 mm (1266N), 0.5 mm (3096N), and 1 mm (3523N) of deformation. The Betzbone® Ø 10 mm required an additional 1106N to be deformed by 0.1 mm (2372N), 2039N to be deformed by 0.5 mm (5135N), and 2245N to be deformed by 1 mm (5768N).

When viewing the results of the ISKD® Ø 10.7 mm, Precice® Ø 10.7 mm, Albizzia® Ø 11 mm, and Betzbone® Ø 11 mm together, the ISKD® Ø 10.7 mm consistently required the least amount of force to be deformed while, apart from 0.01 mm deformation where the Albizzia® Ø 11 mm performed the best, the Betzbone® Ø 11 mm was the best performing nail. To achieve 1 mm and 3 mm of deformation, the Betzbone® Ø 11 mm required between 60% and 80% more force than the ISKD® Ø 10.7 mm [Figure 2].
Figure 2: Comparison Albizzia® Ø 11mm, Betzbone® Ø 10mm and 11mm, ISKD® Ø 10.7mm, and Precice® Ø 10.7mm

Click here to view


When viewing the results of the G-Nail® Ø 13 mm, Betzbone® Ø 12 mm, and Betzbone® Ø 13 mm nails, the Betzbone® Ø 13 mm consistently required more force to be deformed. Across all tests, the G-Nail® Ø 13 mm required the least amount of force to be deformed. When looking at only the 13 mm nails, the Betzbone® Ø 13 mm required between 50% and 80% more force than the G-Nail® Ø 13 mm [Figure 3].
Figure 3: Comparison Betzbone® Ø 12mm and 13mm and Guichet® Ø 13mm

Click here to view


Stainless steel and cobalt-chrome alloy nails were more resistant to deformation than titanium nails. When comparing surgical steel and cobalt-chrome alloy implants of the same size, more force was needed to deform the surgical steel nail for 0.01 mm, but for deformations beyond 0.01 mm, the cobalt-chrome alloy nails showed higher resistant to deformation [Figure 4].
Figure 4: Comparison of surgical steel, titanium, and cobalt chrome alloy

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The efficacy of any limb lengthening strategy relies on the ability of the lengthening device to accurately affect lengthening while providing adequate stability to support regenerate consolidation and functional rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to test the mechanical properties of contemporary intramedullary lengthening devices.

The principle finding of this mechanical study was first that the diameter is essential for the stability of lengthening nails. Similar to the findings of Penzkofer et al., the bigger the diameter of a nail is the higher the resistance against plastic deformation.[25] Similarly, Lee et al. observed a higher percentage of nail bending in smaller diameter nails.[26] Our findings also showed that the nail with the smallest diameter (Betzbone® Ø 9 mm) was least resistant to plastic deformation, whereas the lengthening nails with the larger diameter (Betzbone® Ø 13 mm and G-Nail® Ø 13 mm) showed the highest resistance against plastic deformation. From these findings, it is clear that surgeons should choose the largest diameter nail that would be accommodated in the diaphysis when performing lengthening procedures.

Comparing both Ø 13 lengthening nails, it seems that nonferrous metal is superior to surgical steel. Gotman investigated the characteristics of metals used in implants and described a higher wear resistance of cobalt-chrome-based alloys, which might explain our observations.[27] Sahoo et al. and Goharian and Abdullah also described the properties of cobalt-chrome and emphasized the high specific strength of this alloy.[28],[29]

Interestingly, comparing the Ø 11 mm nails, the Albizzia showed a slightly higher resistance to plastic deformation of 0.01 mm in comparison to Betzbone®. In the test measuring the plastic deformation of 0.5 mm, 1 mm, and 3 mm, the cobalt-chrome alloy nail showed higher resistance to plastic deformation. Comparing the Ø 10.7 mm titanium nail to the Ø 10 mm and Ø 11 mm cobalt-chrome nails, the cobalt-chrome nails again performed better than the titanium nail, barring the 0.01 mm test where the Ø 10.7 mm titanium nail outperformed the Ø 10 mm cobalt-chrome nail. Goharian and Abdullah investigated the properties of titanium and cobalt-chrome alloys and found cobalt-chrome alloys to have higher resistance to axial compression, bending, and torsion.[28] Our results support these findings as the cobalt-chrome alloy nail was found to show higher bending resistance, even when using a smaller diameter nail.

The clinical comparison of different intramedullary lengthening nails has only been evaluated in a single study.[30] Thaller et al. compared the outcomes of different implants (ISKD® and Fitbone®) in a matched-pair analysis and found that the distraction index (mm/day) and the weight-bearing index (days/cm) was highly dependent on the specific technical drawbacks of each nail.[30] However, no publication focusing on the mechanical properties of different lengthening nails has been published. This study emphasizes the importance of material properties and nail diameter when choosing one of these devices to perform intramedullary lengthening.

It should be kept in mind that the findings of this mechanical study do not necessarily translate to clinical relevance. We only performed lateral bending testing while more complex forces during gait are anticipated. A major limitation of the current study is the fact that only one nail of each size and manufacturer was tested, and this precluded statistical analysis. All available lengthening nails and nail sizes were also not included in the mechanical testing. All tested nails were also previously used to perform limb lengthening. We recommend repeating this study with a bigger sample size and included axial compression and micromotion in the testing protocols.


  Conclusion Top


The intramedullary lengthening device's ability to resist bending deformation depends on the diameter and material of the nail. Surgical steel and cobalt-chrome alloy nails showed higher resistant to plastic deformation when compared to titanium nails. The identified differences should be borne in mind when choosing devices to perform intramedullary lengthening procedures. Whenever possible and according to the specific bone of the patient, higher diameters of implants should be used.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Langenbeck B. (1869) On pathological growth of long bones and its use in surgical practice. German. Berl Klin Wochenschr 26(265).  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Codivilla A. The classic: On the means of lengthening, in the lower limbs, the muscles and tissues which are shortened through deformity. 1905. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466:2903-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Putti V. The operative lengthening of the femur. 1921. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990;(250):4-7. PMID: 2403496.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ilizarov GA, Ledyaev VI. The replacement of long tubular bone defects by lengthening distraction osteotomy of one of the fragments. 1969. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1992;(280):7-10. PMID: 1611766.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Stanitski DF, Shahcheraghi H, Nicker DA, Armstrong PF. Results of tibial lengthening with the Ilizarov technique. J Pediatr Orthop 1996;16:168-72.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Stanitski DF, Bullard M, Armstrong P, Stanitski CL. Results of femoral lengthening using the Ilizarov technique. J Pediatr Orthop 1995;15:224-31.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Paley D. Problems, obstacles, and complications of limb lengthening by the Ilizarov technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990;(250):81-104. PMID: 2403498.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Paley D, Harris M, Debiparshad K, Prince D. Limb lengthening by implantable limb lengthening devices. Tech Orthop 2014;29:72-85.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Green SA. Complications of external skeletal fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1983;(180):109-16. PMID: 6627782.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Simpson AH, Kenwright J. Fracture after distraction osteogenesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000;82:659-65.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Danziger MB, Kumar A, DeWeese J. Fractures after femoral lengthening using the Ilizarov method. J Pediatr Orthop 1995;15:220-3.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Bliskunov AI. Intramedulliarnaia distraktsiia bedrennoĭ kosti (predvaritel'noe soobshchenie) [Intramedullary distraction of the femur (preliminary report)]. Ortop Travmatol Protez. 1983;(10):59-62. Russian. PMID: 6646687.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Götz J, and Schellmann W. Kontinuierliche Verlängerung des Femur bei intramedullärer Stabilisierung. (Continous femoral lengthening with intramedullary stabilisation.) German. Archiv für orthopädische und Unfall-Chirurgie, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Frakturenlehre und der orthopädisch-chirurgischen Technik, 2004;82;305-10.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Baumann F, Harms J. The extension nail. A new method for lengthening of the femur and tibia (author's transl). Arch Orthop Unfallchir 1977;90:139-46.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Baumgart R, Betz A, Schweiberer L. A fully implantable motorized intramedullary nail for limb lengthening and bone transport. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997;(343):135-43. PMID: 934521.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Betz A, Baumgart R, Schweiberer L. First fully implantable intramedullary system for callus distraction – Intramedullary nail with programmable drive for leg lengthening and segment displacement. Principles and initial clinical results. Chirurg 1990;61:605-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Guichet JM, Casar RS. Mechanical characterization of a totally intramedullary gradual elongation nail. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;(337):281-90. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199704000-00032. PMID: 9137201.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Weber P, Hax P, and Betz A. Ausgleich posttraumatischer Beinlängendifferenzen mit einem Verlängerungsmarknagel (Correction of posttraumatic limblength deficieny via intramedullary lengthening nail). German. Trauma und Berufskrankheit 2017;19:191-7.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Cole JD, Justin D, Kasparis T, DeVlught D, Knobloch C. The intramedullary skeletal kinetic distractor (ISKD): First clinical results of a new intramedullary nail for lengthening of the femur and tibia. Injury 2001;32 Suppl 4:D129-39.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Hankemeier S, Gösling T, Pape HC, Wiebking U, Krettek C. Limb lengthening with the Intramedullary Skeletal Kinetic Distractor (ISKD). Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2005;17:79-101. English, German. doi: 10.1007/s00064-005-1123-5. PMID: 16007380.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Wagner P, Burghardt RD, Green SA, Specht SC, Standard SC, Herzenberg JE. PRECICE® magnetically-driven, telescopic, intramedullary lengthening nail: Pre-clinical testing and first 30 patients. SICOT J 2017;3:19.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Green SA, Fragomen AT, Herzenberg JE, Iobst C, McCarthy JJ, Nelson SC, et al. A magnetically controlled lengthening nail: A prospective study of 31 individuals (The PRECICE TM intramedullary nail study). J Limb Lengthen Reconstr 2018;4:67-75.  Back to cited text no. 22
  [Full text]  
23.
Paley D. PRECICE intramedullary limb lengthening system. Expert Rev Med Devices 2015;12:231-49.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Robbins C, Paley D. Stryde weight-bearing internal lengthening nail. Tech Orthop 2020;35:201-8.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Penzkofer R, Maier M, Nolte A, von Oldenburg G, Püschel K, Bühren V, et al. Influence of intramedullary nail diameter and locking mode on the stability of tibial shaft fracture fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009;129:525-31.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Lee DH, Kim S, Lee JW, Park H, Kim TY, Kim HW. A comparison of the device-related complications of intramedullary lengthening nails using a new classification system. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:8032510.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Gotman I. Characteristics of metals used in implants. J Endourol 1997;11:383-9.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Goharian, Amirhossein and Abdullah, Mohamed. 7-Bioinert Metals (Stainless Steel, Titanium, Cobalt Chromium). Trauma Plating Systems 2017, pp. 115-14. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-804634-0.00007-0.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Sahoo P, Das SK, Paulo Davim J. Tribology of Materials for Biomedical Applications. Mechanical Behaviour of Biomaterials. 2019, pp. 1-45. (DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-102174-3.00001-2).  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Thaller PH, Frankenberg F, Degen N, Soo C, Wolf F, Euler E, et al. Complications and effectiveness of intramedullary limb lengthening: A matched pair analysis of two different lengthening nails. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2020;15:7-12.  Back to cited text no. 30
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed140    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded2    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]