Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 28, 2025
A Minimally Invasive Model to Analyze Endochondral Fracture Healing in Mice Under Standardized Biomechanical Conditions
Published on: March 22, 2018
Effect of Simulated Bone Resorption on the Biomechanical Performance of Intramedullary Devices for Foot and Ankle
Caitlyn J Beals1, Gabriella A S Wong2, Kenneth M Dupont3
1Engineering Student, Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Abstract:
Midfoot and subtalar arthrodesis surgeries are performed to correct foot deformities and relieve arthritic pain. These procedures often employ intramedullary (IM) devices. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the biomechanical performance of a sustained dynamic compression (SDC) IM device compared to mechanically static devices in withstanding the effects of simulated bone resorption. Mechanically static and SDC IM devices were implanted in simulated bone blocks (n = 5/device). Compressive loads were measured with a custom-made mechanism to simulate bone resorption. The construct bending stiffness was determined from a 4-point bend test. Resorption was simulated by cutting a 1 mm or 2 mm gap in the midpoint of each construct and repeating the loading (n = 6/device). Initial compressive loads after device insertion were greater in the SDC IM devices when compared to the static devices (p < .01). The SDC device was able to sustain compression from 2 mm to 5.5 mm of simulated resorption depending upon device length, while the static devices lost compression within 1 mm of simulated resorption regardless of implant length (p < .001). In the 4-point bend test, the SDC device maintained its bending stiffness during simulated resorption whereas the static device displayed a significant loss in bending stiffness after 1 mm of simulated resorption (p < .001). The SDC device exhibited a significantly higher bending stiffness than the static device (p < .001). The SDC IM device demonstrated superior biomechanical performance during simulated resorption compared to static devices (p < .001). In conclusion, the ability of SDC IM devices to maintain construct stability and sustain compression across the fusion site while adapting to bone resorption may lead to greater fusion rates and overall quicker times to fusion than static IM devices. Surgeons who perform midfoot and subtalar arthrodesis procedures should be aware of a device's ability to sustain compression, especially in cases where bone resorption and joint settling are prevalent postoperatively.
