Damage Control techniques involve primary external fracture fixation to reduce the ‘second hit’ of surgery. This study used a large animal (ovine) trauma model to compare pathophysiological responses of primary external femoral fixation and intramedullary stabilisation. Under terminal anaesthesia bilateral femoral fractures and hypovolaemia were produced using a pneumatic ram. 24 sheep were randomised into 4 groups and monitored for 24 hours. Group 1 – Control; Group 2 – Trauma only; Group 3 – Trauma and external fixation; Group 4 – Trauma and reamed intramedullary stabilisation. Outcome measures: pulmonary embolic load (transoesophageal echocardiography); plasma coagulation markers; bronchoalveolar lavage differential cell counts (neutrophils, lymphocytes and macrophages). Total embolic load was significantly higher (p<0.001) in the intramedullary fixation group (median score 42 versus 20). All trauma groups had a significant increase (p < 0.05) in prothrombin time with a fall in antithrombin III and fibrinogen levels. No significant differences occurred between trauma groups with any coagulation or alveolar lavage marker. Intramedullary femoral fracture fixation produced a relatively higher pulmonary embolic load. However, the initial fracture fixation method did not affect any of the changes seen in the measured coagulation or inflammatory markers during the first 24 hours of injury.
Measuring strain in biological specimens has always been inherently difficult due to their shape and surface properties. Traditional methods such as strain gauges require contact and therefore have reinforcing effects, also the surface preparation can be time consuming and if proper fixation is not achieved the results will be inaccurate. Using a non contact method to measure strain such as photogrammetry has several advantages. The strain over the whole surface of a specimen can be mapped, depending on the field of view of the camera used. It has a large dynamic range, from microns to millimetres which can be decided upon at the post processing stage. Specimens can be tested to destruction without damaging any measurement equipment. Also there is considerably less set up time involved between testing different specimens once the system is in place. We aimed to test speckle photogrammetry, a method used in industry and fluid dynamics as a tool for assessing proximal femur fracture stability and repair techniques. A Zwick Roell materials testing machine was used to axially apply a staircase loading pattern to sawbones femora, simulating the load experienced by the femur when standing. Firstly an intact bone was tested then a set of three identical fractures of each of three common fracture configurations were produced by osteotomy. The first femur of each configuration was loaded un-repaired to failure; the remaining two were repaired using common techniques for that particular fracture type then also loaded to failure. The bone and fixation device were covered with stochastic, high contrast paint speckle prior to testing. This speckle pattern was recorded at regular load intervals by a digital camera which was attached to the materials testing machine via a rigid frame to eliminate any camera movement. These images were then transferred to a computer where they were converted to 8 bit bitmap images. Matlab was used to process the data from subsequent images to produce vector and colour maps of the displacements and strains over the entire visible surface of the proximal femur and to show the comparative displacements and strains experienced by the individual bone fragment and the fixation devices. Non contact optical strain measurement has proved itself to be a useful tool in assessing the stability of fractures and the repair techniques of these fractures. Additionally it can also be used to validate finite element models to compare theoretical and experimental results due to the similar data and graphic visualisation outputs which are produced by both techniques.
24 sheep were randomised into 4 groups and monitored for 24 hours following injury: Group 1 – Control Group (effects of general anaesthesia only) Group 2 – Control Group for Trauma (injury but no long bone stabilisation) Group 3 – Damage control group (Injury and external fixation) Group 4 – Early total care (Injury and reamed intra-medullary stabilisation)
