Mechanical Testing of Seven Fixation Methods for Generation of Compression Across a Midtarsal Osteotomy: A Comparison of Internal and External Fixation Devices

The purpose of this study was to assess 7 methods of fixation for a midtarsal osteotomy. Polyurethane foam models (N = 6) and cadaver specimens (N = 4–7) were used to examine the force generated by the different constructs of fixation. A midtarsal osteotomy was performed on each specimen in the test groups. The osteotomies were fixated either with 2 parallel 0.062-in Kirschner wires and 40-mm-long, 4-mm partially threaded, cancellous, cannulated titanium screws, an external ring fixator (frame), a frame with wires tensioned (tension), a frame with wires tensioned and compressed toward the osteotomy (tension and compression), a frame with tension, compression, and parallel Kirschner wires, or a frame with tension, compression, and two 4.0 cannulated parallel screws, respectively. Each model was fixated, and the force generated by the construct across the osteotomy was recorded via the use of pressure-sensitive film. Statistical analysis of the data in the polyurethane foam group determined that the use of frame with tension, compression, and two 4.0 parallel cannulated screws was statistically superior to 1) frame, 2) frame with tension, 3) 2 parallel Kirschner wires, 4) two 4.0 cannulated parallel screws, and 5) frame with tension and compression. A cadaver study determined that the frame with tension, compression, and 2 parallel Kirschner wires was statistically superior to 1) frame and 2) two parallel Kirschner wires. These findings suggest that there is a difference in the force generated by the type of fixation construct across a midtarsal osteotomy.

Key words: fixation devices, Internal fixation, external fixation, midtarsal osteotomy compression