CME OnDemand: 2022 AOFAS Annual Meeting-Effect of Insertion Trajectory on the Compressive Performance of Intramedullary Devices for Subtalar Arthrodesis

Effect of Insertion Trajectory on the Compressive Performance of Intramedullary Devices for Subtalar Arthrodesis

Pdf Summary

This study aimed to determine the effect of trajectory and device on subtalar joint compression during subtalar arthrodesis, specifically focusing on the use of sustained dynamic compression devices. The researchers compared the compressive performance of two different devices: a sustained dynamic compression device and a static compression device.<br /><br />The methods included the use of a load cell and references to previous studies by Matsumoto et.al. (2016) and Chuckpaiwong et.al. (2009). The results were presented as mean +/- standard deviation for each group (N=8/group).<br /><br />The conclusion of the study was that there was agreement with previous findings regarding the effect of screw trajectory on joint compression. However, there were some limitations to the study, including the use of a sawbone model and a single load cell. Despite these limitations, the sustained dynamic compression device showed increased compression compared to the static compression device. Additionally, the researchers found that the insertion trajectory did not significantly affect joint compressive forces for the sustained dynamic compression device.<br /><br />In summary, this study explored the effect of insertion trajectory on the compressive performance of intramedullary devices for subtalar arthrodesis. The sustained dynamic compression device showed increased compression compared to the static compression device, with similar joint compressive forces regardless of insertion trajectory.

Asset Subtitle

Christopher E. Gross, MD, Caitlyn Beals, Kenneth Dupont, David L. Safranski

Keywords

effect of trajectory

device

subtalar joint compression

subtalar arthrodesis

sustained dynamic compression device

static compression device

load cell

Matsumoto et.al. (2016)

Chuckpaiwong et.al. (2009)

mean +/- standard deviation