Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:24:43.445Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Finite Element Study about CAM-Out Failure of the Recess-Screwdriver Interfaces for the Cold-Welded Periarticular Fixation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2012

C.-Y. Chien ,
W.-H. Chuang ,
W.-C. Tsai ,
S.-C. Lin ,
Y.-P. Luh  and
Y.-J. Chen
C.-Y. Chien
Affiliation:
Graduate Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan 10608, R.O.C
W.-H. Chuang
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Central University, Taoyuan, Taiwan 32001, R.O.C.
W.-C. Tsai
Affiliation:
BoneCare Orthopedic Centers, Han-Chiung Clinics, Taipei, Taiwan 10666, R.O.C.
S.-C. Lin*
Affiliation:
Graduate Institute of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technique, Taipei, Taiwan 10617, R.O.C.
Y.-P. Luh
Affiliation:
Graduate Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan 10608, R.O.C.
Y.-J. Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan 33302, R.O.C.
*
*Corresponding author ([email protected])
Get access

Abstract

In clinical practice, cam-out failure at the recess-screwdriver interfaces may occur when tightening or removing a bone screw. For titanium-based periarticular fixation, the literature reports have revealed that cold welding at the plate-screw interfaces makes the screw recess especially prone to cam-out failure during screw removal. In this study, the effects of the four recess shapes (cross, hexagon, star, and crest), three torque value (0.8, 1.0, and 1.2N-m), and the three interfacial misfits (0.00, 0.05, and 0.10mm) on the cam-out failure were numerically evaluated. The free-rotation angle, torque-recess angle, slippage-resisting length, and interfacial stress distribution were defined and chosen as comparison indices for the twelve recess-misfit variations. The results revealed that the interfacial slippage, torque transfer, and stress distribution are highly related to both recess shape and interfacial misfit. The stresses of all recesses and screwdrivers consistently initiate at the contact sites. However, the recess profile significantly affects the stress propagation. The stress patterns of the recess and screwdriver are quite different between the cross-star and hexagon-crest groups. The cross-star group is superior to the hexagon-crest group in terms of the torque-recess angle and slippage-resisting length over. This makes the recess of the cross-star group less stressed than its counterpart. However, the volumes of the cross and the star screwdriver are more highly stressed than the hexagon due to the irregular shape and the thinner flange, respectively. The greater torque and misfit increase the performance difference between the four recess designs. In conclusion, the geometry of the cross and star groups provide the better performance of the screw recess in terms of torque-transferring efficiency and slippage-resisting ability. If the screwdriver material is properly strengthened and the stress-concentrating corners are modified, the cross and star groups would be the optimal designs that protects and extends the lifetime of both recess and reused screwdriver.

Keywords

ScrewRecessCam-outCold-weldingPeriarticular Fixation
Type
Technical Note
Information
Journal of Mechanics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. N1 - N7
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, R.O.C. 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Kumar, G. and Dunlop, C., “Case Report: A Technique to Remove a Jammed Locking Screw from a Journal of Mechanics 7 Locking Plate,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 469, pp. 613–616 (2010).Google Scholar
2. Georgiadis, G. M., Gove, N. K., Smith, A. D. and Rodway, I. P., “Removal of the Less Invasive Stabilization System,” Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 18, pp. 562–564 (2004).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Behring, J. K., Gjerdet, N. R. and Mølster, A., “Slippage Between Screwdriver and Bone Screw,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 404, pp. 368–372 (2002).Google Scholar
4. Klein, S. A., Kenney, N. A., Nyland, J. A. and Seligson, D., “Evaluation of Cruciate and Slot Auxiliary Screw Head Design Modifications for Extracting Stripped Screw Heads,” Acta Orthopaedica Belgica, 73, pp. 772–777 (2007).Google ScholarPubMed
5. Morri, James C., Something New: A Different Screwdriver. http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/top/2005/12/16-37 (2005).Google Scholar
6. Liu, Q., Olson, D. R., Tiley, F. W., Shea, M., Smits, M. and Hart, R. A., “Biomechanical Comparison of a Novel Multilevel Hex-Head Pedicle Screw Design with a Conventional Head Design,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 25, pp. 1115–1120 (2007).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Klein, S. A., Kenney, N. A., Nyland, J. A. and Seligson, D., “Evaluation of Cruciate and Slot Auxiliary Screw Head Design Modifications for Extracting Stripped Screw Heads,” Acta Orthopaedica Belgica, 73, pp. 772–777 (2007).Google ScholarPubMed
8. Behring, J. K., Gjerdet, N. R. and Mølster, A., “Slip-page Between Screwdriver and Bone Screw,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 404, pp. 368–372 (2002).Google Scholar
9. Suzuki, T., Smith, W. R., Stahel, P. F., Morgan, S. J., Baron, A. J. and Hak, D. J., “Technical Problems and Complications in the Removal of the Less Invasive Stabilization System,” Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 24, pp. 369–373 (2010).Google Scholar
10. Hamilton, P., Doig, S. and Williamson, O., “Technical Difficulty of Metal Removal After LISS Plating,” Injury, 35, pp. 626–628 (2004).Google Scholar
11. Cole, P. A., Zlowodzki, M. and Kregor, P. J., “Treatment of Proximal Tibia Fractures Using the Less Invasive Stabilization System: Surgical Experience and Early Clinical Results in 77 Fractures,” Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, 18, pp. 528–535 (2004).Google Scholar
12. Norton, M. R., “Assessment of Cold Welding Properties of the Internal Conical Interface of Two Commercially Available Implant Systems,” Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 81, pp. 159–166 (1999).Google Scholar
13. Ehlinger, M., Adam, P., Simon, P. and Bonnomet, F., “Technical Difficulties in Hardware Removal in Titanium Compression Plates with Locking Screws,” Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery & Research, 95, pp. 373–376 (2009).Google Scholar
14. Bae, J. H., Oh, J. K., Oh, C. W. and Hur, C. R., “Technical Difficulties of Removal of Locking Screw After Locking Compression Plating,” Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 129, pp. 91–95 (2009).Google Scholar
15. AO: Surgical Manual: http://www.synthes.com/MediaBin/International%20DATA/036.001.367.pdfGoogle Scholar
16. Kayabasi, O., Yüzbasioglu, E. and Erzincanli, F., “Static, Dynamic and Fatigue Behaviors of Dental Implant Using Finite Element Method,” Advances in Engineering Software, 37, pp. 649–658 (2006).Google Scholar