← Articles

Gutbrod et al: Ex vivo biomechanical evaluation of 2.4 mm LCP plate rod constructs versus 2.7 mm LCP applied to the feline tibia
Veterinary Surgery 4, 2024

🔍 Key Findings

  • 2.4 mm LCP with a 1.6 mm IM pin had the highest axial stiffness and yield strength among the tested constructs.
  • Axial stiffness was significantly higher in the 2.4 mm LCP + 1.6 mm IM pin group compared to 2.7 mm LCP alone (p = .013).
  • No significant difference in torsional stiffness was found among groups.
  • 2.4 mm LCP + 1.0 mm pin had the lowest stiffness and failure load, underperforming both other constructs.
  • All constructs failed via valgus bending, consistent with clinical observations in feline tibial fractures.
  • A 1.6 mm pin (~50% canal fill) resulted in superior construct performance vs. 1.0 mm (~30% fill).
  • Group 2 (2.4 LCP + 1.6 mm pin) outperformed the 2.7 mm LCP alone in stiffness, despite using a smaller plate.
  • Plate–rod constructs may better preserve periosteal blood supply and support minimally invasive stabilization strategies.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

How critical is this paper for crushing the Boards?

🚨 Must-know. I’d bet on seeing this.

📚 Useful background, not must-know.

💤 Skip it. Doubt it’ll ever show up.

Thanks for the feedback!
‍We'll keep fine-tuning the articles vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
‍Mind trying that again?
← Articles

Gutbrod et al: Ex vivo biomechanical evaluation of 2.4 mm LCP plate rod constructs versus 2.7 mm LCP applied to the feline tibia
Veterinary Surgery 4, 2024

🔍 Key Findings

  • 2.4 mm LCP with a 1.6 mm IM pin had the highest axial stiffness and yield strength among the tested constructs.
  • Axial stiffness was significantly higher in the 2.4 mm LCP + 1.6 mm IM pin group compared to 2.7 mm LCP alone (p = .013).
  • No significant difference in torsional stiffness was found among groups.
  • 2.4 mm LCP + 1.0 mm pin had the lowest stiffness and failure load, underperforming both other constructs.
  • All constructs failed via valgus bending, consistent with clinical observations in feline tibial fractures.
  • A 1.6 mm pin (~50% canal fill) resulted in superior construct performance vs. 1.0 mm (~30% fill).
  • Group 2 (2.4 LCP + 1.6 mm pin) outperformed the 2.7 mm LCP alone in stiffness, despite using a smaller plate.
  • Plate–rod constructs may better preserve periosteal blood supply and support minimally invasive stabilization strategies.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

Join Now to Access Key Summaries to more Veterinary Surgery Articles!
Log InSign Up

Multiple Choice Questions on this study

In Gutbrod 2024 et al., on feline tibial stabilization, what was the mode of failure in all biomechanical tests across constructs?

A. Torsional break at screw holes
B. Cracking of plate ends
C. Implant breakage
D. Bone splitting at metaphysis
E. Valgus (lateral) bending

Answer: Valgus (lateral) bending

Explanation: This failure mode mirrored clinical complications in feline tibial fractures.
In Gutbrod 2024 et al., on feline tibial stabilization, what intramedullary pin diameter was associated with the highest biomechanical performance?

A. 1.0 mm (30% fill)
B. 1.2 mm (40% fill)
C. 1.6 mm (50% fill)
D. 2.0 mm (60% fill)
E. No pin used

Answer: 1.6 mm (50% fill)

Explanation: Group 2 used a 1.6 mm pin filling ~50% of the tibial canal, yielding superior stiffness.
In Gutbrod 2024 et al., on feline tibial stabilization, how did the 2.4 mm LCP + 1.0 mm pin construct perform compared to others?

A. Best in all metrics
B. Equal to the 2.7 mm LCP
C. Lowest stiffness and axial force
D. Failed via screw pullout
E. Worst torsional but best axial performance

Answer: Lowest stiffness and axial force

Explanation: Group 1 had significantly inferior yield point and failure load versus groups 2 and 3.
In Gutbrod 2024 et al., on feline tibial stabilization, which construct demonstrated the highest axial stiffness?

A. 2.4 mm LCP + 1.0 mm pin
B. 2.7 mm LCP alone
C. 2.4 mm LCP + 1.6 mm pin
D. 2.0 mm DCP + 1.6 mm pin
E. 2.0 mm LCP + 1.0 mm pin

Answer: 2.4 mm LCP + 1.6 mm pin

Explanation: Group 2 (2.4 mm LCP + 1.6 mm pin) showed the greatest stiffness and yield point under axial loading.
In Gutbrod 2024 et al., on feline tibial stabilization, why might plate–rod constructs be preferred for feline tibial fractures?

A. They are more cost-effective
B. They simplify screw placement
C. They mimic natural bone curvature
D. They allow shorter surgical times
E. They better preserve periosteal blood supply

Answer: They better preserve periosteal blood supply

Explanation: Plate–rod methods facilitate minimally invasive fixation and preserve biological healing potential.

Elevate Your Infection Control Protocol

Implement Simini Protect Lavage for superior, clinically-proven post-operative skin antisepsis and reduced infection risk.

Start Your Free Trial TodayStart Your Free Trial

Review More Key Summaries from this Veterinary Surgery Journal Issue

Horwood

 et al: 

Complications and outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in dogs with luxoid hip dysplasia: 18 cases (2010–2022)

Mcclean

 et al: 

Accuracy and safety of two landmark‐guided techniques for arthrocentesis and intra‐articular injection of the shoulder in dogs

González Montaño

 et al: 

Traumatic pulmonary pseudocysts in nine dogs and two cats

Mattioli

 et al: 

Peripheral sentinel lymphadenectomy in 163 dogs: Postoperative surgical complications and comparison between intraoperative dissection techniques

Jourdain

 et al: 

Fluoroscopically-assisted closed reduction and percutaneous fixation of sacroiliac luxations in cats using 2.4 mm headless cannulated compression screws: Description, evaluation and clinical outcome