Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 15, 2026
Mouse Lumbar Vertebra Uniaxial Compression Testing with Embedding of the Loading Surface
Published on: December 1, 2023
The mechanical behavior of locking compression plates compared with dynamic compression plates in a cadaver radius
Michael J Gardner1, Robert H Brophy, Deirdre Campbell
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021, USA. gardnerm@hss.edu
Objective:
The purpose of this cadaveric study was to compare the mechanical behavior of a locked compression plate, which uses threaded screw heads to create a fixed angle construct, with a dynamic compression plate construct in a cadaver radius model.
Design:
Mechanical study with cyclic testing and high-speed optical motion analysis.
Setting:
Biomechanics laboratory at an academic institution.
Patients/Participants:
Eighteen pairs of fresh-frozen human cadaver radii were divided into 3 groups of 6 to be tested as a group in each of the following force applications: anteroposterior (AP) bending, mediolateral bending, or torsion.
Intervention:
Each bone was osteotomized leaving a 5-mm fracture gap and then fixed with a plate. For each pair, 1 radius received a standard plate (limited-contact dynamic compression plates; LC-DCP), the contralateral radius was fixed with a locking compression plate (LCP), and specimens underwent cyclic loading. Normalized stiffness, average energy absorbed, and Newton-cycles to failure were calculated. In addition, a 3-dimensional, high-speed, infrared motion analysis system was used to evaluate motion at the fracture site.
Main Outcome Measurements:
Construct stiffness, fracture site motion, cycles to failure, and energy absorption. Repeated measures ANOVA were used to detect differences between groups with time.
Results:
In the torsion group, LCP specimens failed at 60% greater Newton-cycles than the LC-DCP (1473 vs. 918; P < 0.05). In the AP group, the LC-DCP absorbed significantly greater energy during 10,000 cycles compared with the LCP group (P < 0.05). The 2 constructs demonstrated different biomechanical behavior with time. As cycling progressed in the LC-DCP specimens under torsion testing, stiffness (measured at the actuator at the bone ends) did not change significantly; however, fracture motion (measured at the fracture surfaces) decreased significantly (P = 0.04). The LCP specimens did not display similar behavior.
Conclusions:
Our findings indicated that LCP constructs may demonstrate subtle mechanical superiority compared with the LC-DCP. The LCP specimens had less energy absorption in the AP group and survived longer in the torsion group. Discordance of motion between measurement regions was observed only in the LC-DCP torsion group, and may have been caused by plate-bone slippage or bone-screw subcatastrophic failure. However, many other compared parameters were found to be similar, and the clinical significance of the few differences found between constructs mandates further investigation.
