Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 11, 2025

A Minimally Invasive Model to Analyze Endochondral Fracture Healing in Mice Under Standardized Biomechanical Conditions
Published on: March 22, 2018
The Biomechanical Effects of Intramedullary Fixation to the Level of the Physeal Scar on Distal Tibia Fracture
Brian A Schneiderman1, Giovanni Oppizzi, Jayesh Gupta
1From the Department of Orthopaedics, R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD (Dr. Schneiderman, Mr. Oppizzi, Mr. Gupta, Ms. Burke, Dr. Munn, Dr. Wilkinson, Dr. Jaeblon, Dr. O'Toole, and Dr. Sciadini), and the Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD (Dr. Zhang).
Introduction:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether intramedullary nail contact with physeal scar improves construct mechanics when treating distal tibial shaft fractures.
Methods:
Axially unstable extra-articular distal tibia fractures were created in 30 fresh frozen cadaveric specimens (15 pairs, mean age 79 years). Specimens underwent intramedullary nailing to the level of the physeal scar locked with one or two interlocks or short of the physeal scar locked with two interlocks (reference group). Specimens were subjected to 800N of axial load for 25,000 cycles. Primary outcomes were stiffness before and after cyclic loading. Secondary outcomes were load to failure, load at 3 mm displacement, plastic deformation, and total deformation.
Results:
The physeal scar with one interlock cohort demonstrated 3.8% greater stiffness before cycling ( P = 0.75) and 1.7% greater stiffness after cycling ( P = 0.86) compared with the reference group. The physeal scar with two interlocks group exhibited 0.3% greater stiffness before cycling ( P = 0.98) and 8.4% greater stiffness after cycling ( P = 0.41) in relation to the reference group. No differences were identified regarding load to failure or load at 3 mm displacement. In specimens with two interlocks, those in contact with the physeal scar demonstrated significantly less plastic ( P = 0.02) and total ( P = 0.04) deformation.
Conclusions:
Constructs ending at the physeal scar demonstrated stiffness and load to failure similar to those without physeal scar contact. Less plastic and total deformation was noted in two-interlock constructs with physeal scar contact, suggesting a possible protective effect provided by the physeal scar. These data argue that physeal scar contact may offer a small mechanical benefit in nailing distal tibia fractures, but clinical relevance remains unknown.
More Related Videos
07:35Creating Rigidly Stabilized Fractures for Assessing Intramembranous Ossification, Distraction Osteogenesis, or Healing of Critical Sized Defects
Published on: April 11, 2012
05:34A Mini-Invasive Internal Fixation Technique for Studying Immobilization-Induced Knee Flexion Contracture in Rats
Published on: May 20, 2019