Skip to main content

Table 1 Axial stiffness of rings

From: Comparison of transverse wires and half pins in Taylor Spatial Frame: A biomechanical study

  180 mm rings 155 mm rings
Divergence Angle Half pins (1 ring) Transverse Wires (2 rings) Transverse Wires (1 ring) Half pins (1 ring) Transverse Wires (2 rings) Transverse Wires (1 ring)
90° 98.04 (±2.03) 102.04 (±1.28) 68.49 (±0.39) 200 (±2.61) 138.88 (±2.08) 80.64 (±0.33)
75° 89.28 (±2.37) 90.59 (±1.85) 67.56 (±0.83) 192.3 (±1.27) 128.2 (±1.15) 78.12 (±1.93)
60° 74.62 (±1.46) 79.36 (±2.76) 52.08 (±2.18) 151.51 (±0.19) 125 (±0.08) 79.36 (±2.81)
45° 63.29 (±0.37) 65.44 (±2.31) 51.02 (±1.49) 116.27 (±1.68) 92.59 (±1.27) 83.33 (±2.89)
  1. All values in N/mm and brackets show SD. For larger diameter rings (180 mm) there was no statistically significant difference between the transverse wires (with accessory ring) and the half pins (p > 0.05). Both, half pin and transverse wires constructs with accessory rings were significantly stiffer than a single ring fixation using 2 transverse wires only (p = 0.017). For 155 mm internal diameter rings, half pins provided statistically higher axial stiffness than transverse wires with accessory rings (p = 0.036).