Biomechanical study of a low-cost external fixator for diaphyseal fractures of long bones

Background External fixation improves open fracture management in emerging countries. However, sophisticated models are often expensive and unavailable. We assessed the biomechanical properties of a low-cost external fixation system in comparison with the Hoffmann® 3 system, as a reference. Methods Transversal, oblique, and comminuted fractures were created in the diaphysis of tibia sawbones. Six external fixators were tested in three modes of loading—axial compression, medio-lateral (ML) bending, and torsion—in order to determine construction stiffness. The fixator construct implies two uniplanar (UUEF1, UUEF2) depending the pin-rods fixation system and two biplanar (UBEF1, UBEF2) designs based on different bar to bar connections. The designed low-cost fixators were compared to a Hoffmann® 3 fixator single rod (H3-SR) and double rod (H3-DR). Twenty-seven constructs were stabilized with UUEF1, UUEF2, and H3-SR (nine constructs each). Nine constructs were stabilized with UBEF1, UBEF2, and H3-DR (three constructs each). Results UUEF2 was significantly stiffer than H3-SR ( p < 0.001) in axial compression for oblique fractures and UUEF1 was significantly stiffer than H3-SR ( p = 0.009) in ML bending for transversal fractures. Both UUEFs were significantly stiffer than H3-SR in axial compression and torsion ( p < 0.05), and inferior to H3-SR in ML bending, for comminuted fractures. In the same fracture pattern, UBEFs were significantly stiffer than H3-DR ( p = 0.001) in axial compression and torsion, while only UBEF1 was significantly stiffer than H3-DR in ML bending ( p = 0.013). Conclusions The results demonstrated that the stiffness of the UUEF and UBEF device compares to the reference fixator and may be helpful in maintaining fracture reduction. Fatigue testing and clinical assessment must be conducted to ensure that the objective of bone healing is achievable with such low-cost devices.