Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Orthop. Aug 18, 2021; 12(8): 548-554
Published online Aug 18, 2021. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v12.i8.548
Published online Aug 18, 2021. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v12.i8.548
Construct | Fixation type | Torque (N/m) |
1 | Fibula pro-tibia | 3.723 |
2 | Fibula pro-tibia | 5.692 |
3 | Fibula pro-tibia | 4.695 |
4 | Fibula pro-tibia | 4.043 |
5 | Fibula pro-tibia | 3.954 |
6 | Standard locking plate | 0.829 |
7 | Standard locking plate | 1.709 |
8 | Standard locking plate | 1.539 |
9 | Standard locking plate | 1.155 |
10 | Standard locking plate | 2.022 |
Construct | Fixation type | Maximum torque at failure (N/m) |
1 | Fibula pro-tibia | 4.270 |
2 | Fibula pro-tibia | 5.970 |
3 | Fibula pro-tibia | 5.176 |
4 | Fibula pro-tibia | 5.468 |
5 | Fibula pro-tibia | 4.513 |
6 | Standard locking plate | 1.187 |
7 | Standard locking plate | 2.869 |
8 | Standard locking plate | 1.519 |
9 | Standard locking plate | 2.497 |
10 | Standard locking plate | 3.422 |
- Citation: Okoro T, Teoh KH, Tanaka H. Fibula pro-tibia vs standard locking plate fixation in an ankle fracture saw bone model. World J Orthop 2021; 12(8): 548-554
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v12/i8/548.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v12.i8.548