Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the biomechanical properties of three stabilisation techniques in feline patella transverse fractures and select the strongest method with potentially minimal complications.

Methods

Patella fracture was simulated in 27 feline cadaveric pelvic limbs (mean weight of the cadavers 3.78 kg), and the limbs were randomly grouped to be stabilised with one of the three stabilisation methods. The modified tension band wiring technique with a single Kirschner wire (0.9 mm) and figure-of-eight wiring (20 G) was applied to group 1 (n = 9). Group 2 (n = 9) was stabilised with a combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight wiring techniques with orthopaedic wire (20 G). Group 3 (n = 9) was stabilised with the same technique as group 2, but with #2 FiberWire. The knee joints were positioned and fixed in the neutral standing angle (135°) and tested by applying tensile force. The loads at gap formations of 1, 2 and 3 mm were recorded, and the maximum failure load was measured in each group.

Results

In all the loads at displacement (1, 2 and 3 mm), group 3 was significantly stronger than groups 1 and 2, respectively (P <0.017). Group 3 (261.0 ± 52.8 N) showed significantly stronger fixation in the maximum load compared with group 1 (172.9 ± 45.6 N) (P <0.017). No significant difference was observed between groups 1 and 2 (204.9 ± 68.4 N) or between groups 2 and 3.

Conclusions and relevance

This study shows that the combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight techniques with FiberWire is more resistant to displacement than metal wire in this ex vivo feline patella fracture model.

Keywords

patella fracture tension band sutures biomechanical study FiberWire

Introduction

Patella fractures infrequently occur but have increasingly been reported during the past few decades. A report has dealt with 52 fractures in 34 cats, and a clinical review of feline patella fracture has been published more recently.^1,2

In humans, the incidence of patella fractures is about 1% of all skeletal injuries, and in dogs, the incidence is reported to be up to 0.1% of all bone fractures; however, in cats, limited information is available on its prevalence.^3,4 Apart from humans and dogs, in cats, pathological patella fractures have been reported, related to patella fracture and dental anomaly syndrome (PADS).^5,6 The aetiology of such a syndrome is unknown, but PADS must be suspected when non-traumatic or stressed unilateral or, more often, bilateral transverse patellar fracture is presented.^2,5

In human medicine, surgery is indicated when displacement is >1–4 mm, but there is no consensus on the indications for surgical intervention in feline medicine.⁷ A retrospective study showed good clinical results with conservative treatment in feline transverse patella fractures; however, it provides weak evidence, dealing with only three cases.⁸ When surgically treated, patella fractures have predominantly been treated with a pin and tension band wire (PTBW) method.² However, in cats, such treatment has been reported to have notoriously high complication rates (64–86%).^2,9 Particularly when the fracture is suspected to be related to PADS, PTBW repair is almost contraindicated due to the high risk of additional fracture and postoperative implant failure.² Therefore, a few attempts to find an alternative method to fix patella fractures in cats have been made. A recent biomechanical study reported that the circumferential wiring combined with figure-of-eight wiring (CFEW) method has the strongest properties over the single circumferential wiring, single figure-of-eight wiring, and modified PTBW techniques.¹⁰

Similarly, in human medicine, when using wires to repair patella fractures, complications related to hardware discomfort and infection occur, in which up to 60% of the patients required removal of the wires or experienced implant failure.^11–14 Therefore, in humans, various novel fixation methods have been introduced, including numerous modifications in tension band wiring methods, cerclage wiring, tension band sutures, screw fixation, cannulated screws with sutures, and plate and screw fixation.^7,14 A clinical comparison of steel wire with braided polyester sutures using a tension band technique has been made in human transverse patella fractures, and the reoperation rate was 6% in the braided polyester group, due to fracture displacement, while that of the steel wire group was 38%, mostly due to hardware discomfort and infection.¹⁵ In dogs, a biomechanical study introduced the use of a locking plate and screws in fixation of a patella fracture and reported it to be more stable than tension band wiring, and a recent clinical case report in which such a method was applied showed a successful outcome.^16,17 However, due to the small size of the patella in cats, screw placement is almost impossible, and in a feline-specific pathological condition such as PADS, drilling into the patella can cause disastrous results, such as additional fracture or implant failure.²

To date, there is no biomechanical study of the repair methods using sutures in feline patella fractures. The high complication rates using the PTBW technique in feline patella fractures indicate that an alternative surgical option is required to potentially increase the success rate. This study aimed to biomechanically evaluate and compare the PTBW technique, the CFEW method, and circumferential suturing combined with the figure-of-eight suture (CFES) using FiberWire.

Materials and methods

Fracture model preparation

A total of 28 pelvic limbs from 14 adult cat cadavers were collected and 27 of them were utilised. The mean weight of the cadavers was 3.78 kg (range 1.5–5.9 kg) and the cats had been euthanased or died of reasons unrelated to orthopaedic pathologies. The cadavers were stored at –20°C and then thawed at room temperature only when they were to be harvested and tested. After collection, the limbs promptly underwent the sampling and surgical process. Then, individually covered in saline-soaked gauze, the samples were refrigerated at 0°C until they were tested on the same day.

For the sampling process, the muscles, except for the quadriceps muscles, were removed from the femur, and then the quadriceps muscles were separated from the femoral bone. The quadriceps muscles were trimmed to remove the muscle mass, leaving only the tendon and fascia. The femoral bone was cut at the level immediately proximal to the patella groove. The soft tissue around the patella was preserved, but the synovium was opened to approach the articular surface of the patella. The patella was cut transversely in the middle with an osteotome and mallet; this is where transverse fractures are known to occur most often.¹⁸

Surgical procedure

Group 1: pin and tension band wire

The PTWB technique was applied to the first group (Figure 1a). A single 0.9 mm Kirschner wire (K-wire) (Top Medical Co.) was drilled in a normograde manner, to reduce the fracture. Then, with a 20 G orthopaedic wire (Imedicom Co.), figure-of-eight wiring was applied, passing behind the proximal and distal ends of the K-wire. The wire was tightened at a proximal corner of the patella and the ends were cut, leaving 3–4 twists. The ends of the K-wire were bent caudally. The synovium and retinacula were left open in all the samples. The sizes of the implants were selected based on a previous biomechanical study and a clinical report.^2,10

Figure 1

An illustration of the methods of repairing patella fracture. (a) Group 1: pin and tension band wire; (b) group 2: combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight wires; (c) group 3: combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight sutures with FiberWire

Group 2: combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight wires

A combination of CFEW techniques was applied to the second group (Figure 1b). A 20 G orthopaedic wire was inserted into the proximal and distal tendon of the patella. First, a circumferential wire was positioned and tightened to reduce the fragments. Then, a second wire of the same size was inserted deeper to the circumferential wire, and a figure-of-eight pattern was formed and tightened. Care was taken not to overtighten the wires and the wire twists were placed at the corners of the patella to minimise prominence.

Group 3: combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight sutures

In group 3, a combination of CFES with FiberWire (Arthrex Inc.) was applied (Figure 1c). The #2 FiberWire with a tapered needle was used to make a circumferential suture around the patella in a purse-string suture pattern. The suture was tightened with a surgeon’s knot followed by a square knot (total four throws), while taking extreme care not to lose tension while tying. A second suture was inserted into the proximal and distal tendon, deeper to the first one, and after forming a figure-of-eight pattern, was tightened with a surgeon’s knot and a square knot. The suture knots were placed at a proximal corner of the patella. Care was taken to put the suture around the equator of the patella, because if not, the fracture was seen to displace at the articular surface.

Biomechanical test

All the limbs were fixed laterally to a wooden plate with the knee joint in its normal standing angle (135°). The wooden plate was mounted on the lower side tensile grip of the Universal Testing Machine (Instron 4467; Instron) and the quadriceps tendon, covered in gauze to prevent slippage, was gripped by the upper side tensile grip (Figure 2). Care was taken to keep the patella on the trochlea throughout the test in order not to interfere with the tension band mechanism. Then a tensile force with a crosshead speed of 10 mm/min was applied. Meanwhile, a ruler was placed next to the patella and two cameras were synchronised to film the monitor showing the load differences and the marked fracture gap. The camera filming the sample was located at the left-caudal side of the sample, viewing the ruler and the fragment gap. The videos were analysed afterwards and the loads at displacements of 1, 2 and 3 mm were measured and recorded. Failure was defined as the point where the load showed an abrupt decrease, and the modes of failure were specified. Raw data were extracted to identify the maximum failure load of each sample.

Figure 2

A photograph of the biomechanical testing set-up. The limb with the femur cut proximal to the patellar trochlea (asterisk) is fixed laterally to a wooden plate. During the test procedure, a camera was set on the left-caudal side of the sample, filming the fragment and a ruler (dashed line) in a diagonal perspective

Statistical analysis

Using a statistical software program (Statistical Program for the Social Sciences v.28.0.1.1, SPSS Inc.; IBM), the Kruskal–Wallis test was applied to find the statistical significance between the groups, and when the P value was <0.05, it was considered to be significant. If there was significance among the groups, the significant differences noted between the groups were determined with a Mann–Whitney test. In this test, a P value <0.017 was considered significant.

Results

Loads at displacements of 1, 2 and 3 mm

Groups 1 (PTBW) and 3 (CFES), and groups 2 (CFEW) and 3 (CFES), were significantly different, respectively (P <0.017). On the other hand, there was no significant difference between groups 1 (PTBW) and 2 (CFEW) (Table 1, Figure 3).

Table 1

Loads at displacements of 1, 2 and 3 mm

Load (N) at displacement
Displacement distance	Group 1 (PTBW)	Group 2 (CFEW)	Group 3 (CFES)
1 mm	65.1 ± 25.2^a	53.0 ± 23.8^a	118.0 ± 47.8^b
2 mm	91.0 ± 26.8^a	100.0 ± 36.2^a	165.2 ± 30.6^b
3 mm	121.4 ± 24.7^a	137.0 ± 41.2^a	207.9 ± 29.3^b

Data are mean ± SD. Statistically significant differences between groups are indicated with different superscript letters (P <0.017).

CFES = combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight sutures; CFEW = combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight wires; PTBW = pin and tension band wire

Figure 3

Box-and-whisker plot of loads at displacements of 1, 2 and 3 mm in each group. Groups that do not share the same letter are significantly different. There were significant differences between groups 1 and 3, and between groups 2 and 3, at each displacement distance. Group 1: pin and tension band wire; group 2: combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight wires; group 3: combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight sutures

Maximum failure load

In terms of maximum failure loads, there was a significant difference between groups 1 (PTBW) and 3 (CFES) (P <0.017) (Table 2, Figure 4).

Table 2

Maximum failure load

Maximum failure load (N)
Group 1 (PTBW)	Group 2 (CFEW)	Group 3 (CFES)
172.9 ± 45.6^a	204.9 ± 68.4^{a b}	212.9 ± 65.7^b

Data are mean ± SD. Statistically significant differences between groups are indicated with different superscript letters (P <0.017).

CFES = combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight sutures; CFEW = combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight wires; PTBW = pin and tension band wire

Figure 4

Box-and-whisker plot of maximum failure load in each group. Groups that do not share the same letter are significantly different. There was a significant difference between groups 1 and 3. Group 1: pin and tension band wire; group 2: combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight wires; group 3: combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight sutures

Types of failure

At the end of the biomechanical test, all the samples arrived at failure after 3 mm displacement (Table 3). Here, tendon rupture implies breaking of the tendon tensile structure unrelated to the implant and suture insertion sites.

Table 3

Types of failure

Group	Failure types
Group 1 (PTBW)	Pin pull-out (n = 6)
	Pin cut-through (n = 1)
	Tendon rupture (n = 2)
Group 2 (CFEW)	Wire elongation (n = 4)
	Wire pulled out from tendon (n = 3)
	Tendon rupture (n = 2)
Group 3 (CFES)	Suture pulled out from tendon (n = 5)
Group 3 (CFES)	Tendon rupture (n = 4)

CFES = combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight sutures; CFEW = combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight wires; PTBW = pin and tension band wire

Discussion

The results of the present study suggest that a CFES combination is more resistant to displacement than a PTBW in this ex vivo feline patella fracture model.

In feline patella fracture surgery this is the first attempt to compare the biomechanical properties of metal implants and suture materials. In human medicine, there have been various attempts to evaluate whether the tension band suturing methods are comparable to tension band wiring with metallic implants. In most of the biomechanical studies, the results showed that the suture method is comparable to the wire method. Patel et al¹⁹ suggested that Ethibond suture provides as sufficient support as metal wires, with no significant difference in the mean maximum fracture gaps. A study by Wright et al²⁰ compared FiberWire with wire and showed that a double-strand FiberWire with a modified wagoner’s hitch had the largest failure strength. In terms of clinical studies, a systematic review of non-metallic implants for patella fracture fixation found that among all studies, good clinical outcomes were reported, with complication rates up to 10.5% and removal surgery requirement up to 3.2%.²¹ Several other clinical comparisons of suture repair vs wire fixation have reported satisfactory clinical outcomes but with fewer postoperative complications in suture methods.^23–28

The results of the present study show consistency with those of a previous study comparing the different wiring methods in a feline patella fracture cadaveric model, in that the CFEW group was stronger than the PTBW group.¹⁰ In this previous study, the CFEW group showed a 1.31-fold greater mean maximum failure load than that of the PTBW group, while in the present study, it was approximately 1.19-fold greater. This difference may be because, unlike the previous study, the retinaculum and synovium were not closed in this study, with the intention to measure the displacement of the fragments more accurately. This difference implies that adding soft-tissue sutures provides more stability to the joint, which has been emphasised in surgical repair of patellar luxation and cranial cruciate ligament rupture.^29,30

Groups 2 (CFEW) and 3 (CFES) had significant differences in all displacement loads, but there was no significant difference between them in the maximum failure load. This may be due to group 3 (CFES), in which there was little difference between the mean load at 3 mm displacement and the mean maximum failure load. Correspondingly, there was only a little difference between groups 2 and 3 in their mean maximum failure load, thereby resulting in no significant difference between them. According to the types of failure in each group, tendon rupture unrelated to the implant site occurred in every group, and in group 3 (CFES), the number of samples in which tendon rupture occurred was double that of the other groups. In a previous study, the maximum load to failure of the #2 FiberWire was shown to be approximately 1.3 times greater than that in the present study.³¹ This indicates that in the present study, the tendon was ruptured before the FiberWire itself reached its maximum failure load. Such a phenomenon is one of the limitations of the present study; since it was designed as an ex vivo study, the freshness of the soft tissue of the cadavers may have affected the results.³²

Given the small size of the patella in cats, it is worth comparing the technical feasibility of each surgical method. First, in group 1 (PTBW), it was extremely challenging to drill into the patella fragments while achieving correct apposition. Moreover, under the assumption that the cadaveric samples were of normal bone density, the friability of pathological fractures can increase the risk of further fracture when drilling.^1,10 At this point, the frozen and thawed cadaveric bone samples were expected to have similar implant-holding power to that of fresh bone.^33,34 Second, in group 2 (CFEW), tightening of the circumferential wire while preventing slippage of the wires from the equator of the patella was technically demanding. When overtightened, the articular surface of the fragments was displaced. In addition, double wire twists tended to be prominent, which can cause irritation, infection and reduction in the range of motion.^10,13,21 Third, in group 3 (CFES), relatively less time and fewer techniques were required to achieve stable reduction, and the suture materials were much easier to handle than the metal wires. Such technical characteristics have been mentioned in the human literature several times, in which easier handling of the suture materials could shorten the operation time.^{15,18,19,22,35} On the other hand, the knot of the FiberWire can also cause a foreign body reaction and the braided materials have the potential risk of infection.^36,37 However, according to numerous human clinical reports, repairing patella fractures with FiberWire has had a significantly lower rate of implant-related complications than that with wires.^{21,23
–25,27,28} The suture method may also provide an advantage in that it may avoid potential complications associated with drilling into the pathologically fractured patella.

The failure of stabilisation was defined as 3 mm displacement in this study. Sesamoid bones are known to mostly produce fibrous union instead of osseous union, and hence patella fractures may never show radiographic evidence of healing or require a considerably long period of time to do so.^2,38 In cats, it has been reported that only 1/52 patella fractures showed radiographic evidence of healing 3 years after surgery, and in two young kittens it took 3–11 months.^1,39 There is no established agreement on the failure criteria after feline patella repair surgery so far, but the clinical results are reported to be satisfying without complete osseous union.^1,2,8 Accordingly, the aim of repairing patella fracture is more focused on reconstructing the quadriceps mechanism and holding the bone fragments close together.^2,9 Therefore, it seems reasonable to establish the failure criterion as 3 mm displacement. The same criterion of failure has been used in previous studies, both in cats and in humans.^{7,8,10,14,20,40}

There are a few limitations to this study. First, the sample size is relatively small, which could weaken the statistical power. Second, the biomechanical study design is limited to tensile force and does not include repetitive cyclic loading. Third, as this was an ex vivo study, the individual conditions of the cadaveric samples may have affected the results. Fourth, an osteotome and mallet were used to simulate patella fractures. This selection of instruments was made due to the extreme mobility of the patella when an oscillating saw was applied, resulting in inaccurate cutting. The osteotomy margins are reported to be more irregular and to have cortical fissures when cut with an osteotome and mallet rather than with a saw.⁴¹ This variable may have caused irregularity at the fracture margins, which might result in the imperfect reduction of the fragments. Finally, the knot methods and the site of the wire twists were not specifically taken into consideration in this study. The various knot methods tested in human medicine revealed some knots with significant strength over the surgeon’s knot.^19,20 The site of the wire twists was also reported to affect the biomechanical results in a human study.⁴² Such variations may need to be compared in future studies.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that in this ex vivo model, the use of CFES provides greater resistance to fragment displacement and construct failure than the techniques utilising orthopaedic wires. Further studies to compare the techniques in clinical cases are necessary.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Hyun-Jong Choi, Kyung-Ah Yu, Min-Seok Park, Min-Gyu Shin, Seung-Chan Lee, Dong-Hwi Yu and Tae-Hyung Kim for all their support and contributions.

Accepted: 11 April 2023

Conflict of interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

The work described in this manuscript involved the use of non-experimental (owned or unowned) animals. Established internationally recognised high standards (‘best practice’) of veterinary clinical care for the individual patient were always followed and/or this work involved the use of cadavers. Ethical approval from a committee was therefore not specifically required for publication in JFMS. Although not required, where ethical approval was still obtained, it is stated in the manuscript.

Informed consent

Informed consent (verbal or written) was obtained from the owner or legal custodian of all animal(s) described in this work (experimental or non-experimental animals, including cadavers) for all procedure(s) undertaken (prospective or retrospective studies). For any animals or people individually identifiable within this publication, informed consent (verbal or written) for their use in the publication was obtained from the people involved.

ORCID iD

Min-Yeong Lee

References

Langley-Hobbs

SJ.

Survey of 52 fractures of the patella in 34 cats.

Vet Rec 2009; 164: 80–86.

Langley-Hobbs

SJ.

Patellar fractures in cats: repair techniques and treatment decision-making.

J Feline Med Surg 2021; 23: 649–661.

Gwinner

Märdian

Schwabe

, et al. Current concepts review: fractures of the patella. GMS Interdiscip Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW 2016; 5: Doc01. DOI: 10.3205/iprs000080.

Rutherford

Bell

Ness

MG.

Fracture of the patella after TPLO in 6 dogs.

Vet Surg 2012; 41: 869–875.

DeCamp

Johnston

Schaefer

, et al. Fractures of the femur and patella. Brinker, Piermattei and Flo’s handbook of small animal orthopedics and fracture repair. 5th ed. St Louis, MO: Elsevier Health Sciences, 2016, pp 590–594.

Reyes

Longley

Bailey

, et al. Incidence and types of preceding and subsequent fractures in cats with patellar fracture and dental anomaly syndrome. J Feline Med Surg 2019; 21: 750–764.

Schuett

Hake

Mauffrey

, et al. Current treatment strategies for patella fractures. Orthopedics 2015; 38: 377–384.

Salas

Popovitch

Surgical versus conservative management of patella fractures in cats: a retrospective study.

Can Vet J 2011; 52: 1319–1322.

Langley-Hobbs

Patella fractures in cats with persistent deciduous teeth — knees and teeth syndrome (KaTS).

Companion Anim 2016; 21: 620–625.

10.

Longley

Langley-Hobbs

Tarlton

Biomechanical evaluation of simulated feline patellar fracture repairs.

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2017; 30: 125–130.

11.

Kumar

Mereddy

Hakkalamani

, et al. Implant removal following surgical stabilization of patella fracture. Orthopedics 2010; 33: 301–304.

12.

Melvin

Mehta

Patellar fractures in adults.

J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2011; 19: 198–207.

13.

LeBrun

Langford

Sagi

HC.

Functional outcomes after operatively treated patella fractures.

J Orthop Trauma 2012; 26: 422–426.

14.

Steinmetz

Brügger

Chauveau

, et al. Practical guidelines for the treatment of patellar fractures in adults. Swiss Med Wkly 2020; 150: w20165. DOI: 10.4414/smw.2020.2016.

15.

Gosal

Singh

Field

RE.

Clinical experience of patellar fracture fixation using metal wire or non-absorbable polyester — a study of 37 cases.

Injury 2001; 32: 129–135.

16.

Gibert

Kowaleski

Matthys

, et al. Biomechanical comparison of pin and tension-band wire fixation with a prototype locking plate fixation in a transverse canine patellar fracture model. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2016; 29: 20–28.

17.

Chau

Wilson

Patella fracture repair using multiple fixation modalities in a dog.

VCOT Open 2021; 04: e5–e11. DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1722203.

18.

Hughes

SCA

Stott

Hearnden

, et al. A new and effective tension-band braided polyester suture technique for transverse patellar fracture fixation. Injury 2007; 38: 212–222.

19.

Patel

Parks

Wang

, et al. Fixation of patella fractures with braided polyester suture: a biomechanical study. Injury 2000; 31: 1–6.

20.

Wright

Kosmopoulos

Coté

, et al. FiberWire® is superior in strength to stainless steel wire for tension band fixation of transverse patellar fractures. Injury 2009; 40: 1200–1203.

21.

Camarda

Morello

Balistreri

, et al. Non-metallic implant for patellar fracture fixation: a systematic review. Injury 2016; 47: 1613–1617.

22.

Camarda

La Gattuta

Butera

, et al. FiberWire tension band for patellar fractures. J Orthop Traumatol 2016; 17: 75–80.

23.

Shea

GKH

Hoi-Ting So

Tam

, et al. Comparing 3 different techniques of patella fracture fixation and their complications. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 2019; 10: 2151459319827143. DOI: 10.1177/2151459319827143.

24.

Anand

Mohan

Raj

MAV

, et al. Non-metallic fixation of patella fractures using high resistance suture materials. Int J Orthop Sci 2018; 4: 1002–1006.

25.

Egol

Howard

Monroy

, et al. Patella fracture fixation with suture and wire: you reap what you sew. Iowa Orthop J 2014; 34: 63–67.

26.

Wongthongsalee

Chobpenthai

Transosseous suture with an all-FiberWire technique in patellar fracture fixation.

Tech Orthop 2022; 37: 224–231.

27.

Lee

Chon

Yoon

Jung

Modified tension band wiring using FiberWire for patellar fractures.

Clin Orthop Surg 2019; 11: 244–248.

28.

Adjal

Ban

Patella fractures treated with suture tension band fixation.

J Orthop Surg 2021; 16: 179. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02309-5.

29.

Patterson

Smith

Gregor

, et al. Biomechanical stability of four cranial cruciate ligament repair techniques in the dog. Vet Surg 1991; 20: 85–90.

30.

Kowaleski

Boudrieau

Pozzi

Stifle joint. In: Tobias

Johnston

SA (eds).

Veterinary surgery: small animal. 2nd ed. St Louis, MO: Elsevier, 2018, pp 1162–1164.

31.

Najibi

Banglmeier

Matta

, et al. Material properties of common suture materials in orthopaedic surgery. Iowa Orthop J 2010; 30: 84–88.

32.

Clavert

Kempf

Bonnomet

, et al. Effects of freezing/thawing on the biomechanical properties of human tendons. Surg Radiol Anat 2001; 23: 259–262.

33.

Cartner

Hartsell

Ricci

, et al. Can we trust ex vivo mechanical testing of fresh–frozen cadaveric specimens? The effect of postfreezing delays. J Orthop Trauma 2011; 25: 459–461.

34.

Torimitsu

Nishida

Takano

, et al. Effects of the freezing and thawing process on biomechanical properties of the human skull. Leg Med 2014; 16: 102–105.

35.

Hung

Chan

Chow

, et al. Fractured patella: operative treatment using the tension band principle. Injury 1985; 16: 343–347.

36.

Hsu

Jones

Cohen

, et al. Clinical outcomes and complications of percutaneous Achilles repair system versus open technique for acute Achilles tendon ruptures. Foot Ankle Int 2015; 36: 1279–1286.

37.

Masini

Stinner

Waterman

, et al. Bacterial adherence to high–tensile strength sutures. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 2011; 27: 834–838.

38.

Arnbjerg

Bindseil

Patella fracture in cats.

Feline Pract 1994; 22: 31–35.

39.

Hermer

Bush

Whiting

, et al. Healing of patellar fractures in two kittens. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25: 155–159.

40.

Benjamin

Bried

Dohm

, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of various forms of fixation of transverse patellar fractures. J Orthop Trauma 1987; 1: 219–222.

41.

O’Donnell

Warnock

Bobe

, et al. Use of computed tomography to compare two femoral head and neck excision ostectomy techniques as performed by two novice veterinarians. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2015; 28: 295–300.

42.

Ali

Kuiper

John

Biomechanical analysis of tension band wiring (TBW) of transverse fractures of patella.

Chin J Traumatol 2016; 19: 255–258.

Biomechanical evaluation of three fixation methods in a feline transverse patella fracture model

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and methods

Fracture model preparation

Surgical procedure

Group 1: pin and tension band wire

Group 2: combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight wires

Group 3: combination of circumferential and figure-of-eight sutures

Biomechanical test

Statistical analysis

Results

Loads at displacements of 1, 2 and 3 mm

Maximum failure load

Types of failure

Discussion

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Conflict of interest

Funding

Ethical approval

Informed consent

ORCID iD

References