A biomechanical study: Comparison of three different implant options in high Tibial osteotomy

dc.contributor.authorKey, Sefa
dc.contributor.authorDemir, Sukru
dc.contributor.authorAydin, Oguz
dc.contributor.authorSay, Yakup
dc.contributor.authorErten, Mehmet
dc.date.accessioned2026-08-12T17:20:21Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.departmentFırat Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractBackground: Many implant options could be preferable for fixation after osteotomy in varus knee medial compartment arthrosis. Due to usage characteristics, it is important to compare the biomechanical properties of them. For this purpose, we aimed to examine three different implant types biomechanically in our study.Methods: Ovine tibiae undergoing medial open-wedge high tibial osteotomy were fixed in vitro with three different implants using an angular wedge plate, a metal block plate and an external fixator system. The fixed ovine tibiae were subjected to axial tensile, axial loading and three-point bending tests in a test machine. All biomechanical tests were repeated five times, the maximum and minimum values were ignored, and the average values of the remaining three test results were taken into account. The test results were interpreted after con-verted into force-elongation curves in Trapezium-X software. Findings: Biomechanical test results revealed some differences between implant types. While the metal block plate had the highest axial tensile strength value, it was the fixation group showing the lowest strength in axial load tests. The used fixator system was the highest strength in axial load tests and the lowest strength in axial tensile tests. Interpretation: Considering the clinically significant forces related to the biomechanical stability of the three different implants used for high tibial osteotomy, the fixator system would appear to be slightly superior, although it should be noted that torsional forces, as well as parameters that could change in living tissue, might affect the results.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2022.105722
dc.identifier.issn0268-0033
dc.identifier.issn1879-1271
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-3620-936X
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-5005-8516
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-1709-3851
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-6664-4568
dc.identifier.pmid35863144
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85134268559
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2022.105722
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11508/53535
dc.identifier.volume98
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000886385000002
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier Sci Ltd
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Biomechanics
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_WoS_20260511
dc.subjectProximaltibialosteotomy
dc.subjectMedialopen-wedgeosteotomy
dc.subjectvarusknees
dc.subjectBiomechanics
dc.subjectFixation
dc.titleA biomechanical study: Comparison of three different implant options in high Tibial osteotomy
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar