← Articles

Lu et al: Comparison of Bending Stiffness between String of Pearls Plate-Bone Substitute Constructs with and without Bending Tees in a Fracture Gap Model
Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology 2, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

  • Bending tees significantly increased mediolateral bending stiffness, but not craniocaudal stiffness, in plate-bone constructs.
  • Mean mediolateral stiffness was 43.2 N/mm with tees vs. 41.1 N/mm without (p = 0.0042), though the absolute difference was small.
  • No significant differences were found in craniocaudal bending stiffness between constructs with or without tees (p = 0.89).
  • Plastic deformation occurred in all constructs; no screw pull-out or implant breakage was observed.
  • SOP nodes may resist compressive but not tensile deformation, suggesting variable mechanical contributions depending on loading direction.
  • Craniocaudal bending had greater stiffness than mediolateral due to higher area moment of inertia along the node diameter.
  • Clinical relevance of added stiffness from tees remains unclear, warranting further in vivo and cyclic testing.
  • This was the first study to directly test SOP constructs with/without tees over a fracture gap in multiple planes.

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

Lu et al: Comparison of Bending Stiffness between String of Pearls Plate-Bone Substitute Constructs with and without Bending Tees in a Fracture Gap Model
Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology 2, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

  • Bending tees significantly increased mediolateral bending stiffness, but not craniocaudal stiffness, in plate-bone constructs.
  • Mean mediolateral stiffness was 43.2 N/mm with tees vs. 41.1 N/mm without (p = 0.0042), though the absolute difference was small.
  • No significant differences were found in craniocaudal bending stiffness between constructs with or without tees (p = 0.89).
  • Plastic deformation occurred in all constructs; no screw pull-out or implant breakage was observed.
  • SOP nodes may resist compressive but not tensile deformation, suggesting variable mechanical contributions depending on loading direction.
  • Craniocaudal bending had greater stiffness than mediolateral due to higher area moment of inertia along the node diameter.
  • Clinical relevance of added stiffness from tees remains unclear, warranting further in vivo and cyclic testing.
  • This was the first study to directly test SOP constructs with/without tees over a fracture gap in multiple planes.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

Join Now to Access Key Summaries to more Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology Articles!
Log InSign Up

Multiple Choice Questions on this study

In Lu 2025 et al., on SOP constructs, which mechanical axis showed greater bending stiffness regardless of tee usage?

A. Mediolateral
B. Transverse
C. Oblique
D. Craniocaudal
E. Torsional

Answer: Craniocaudal

Explanation: Craniocaudal bending showed 37–44% higher stiffness due to the node's geometry in that axis.
In Lu 2025 et al., on SOP constructs, what was concluded about the **clinical significance** of the increased mediolateral stiffness with bending tees?

A. Clinically transformative
B. Highly significant and recommended
C. Potentially harmful
D. Uncertain, likely minimal impact
E. Indicates need to avoid tees

Answer: Uncertain, likely minimal impact

Explanation: The absolute difference in stiffness was small (2.08 N/mm), so the clinical impact remains unclear.
In Lu 2025 et al., on SOP constructs, what was the **mean mediolateral bending stiffness** of SOP constructs **with** bending tees?

A. 38.4 N/mm
B. 43.2 N/mm
C. 47.8 N/mm
D. 51.6 N/mm
E. 59.1 N/mm

Answer: 43.2 N/mm

Explanation: The mean mediolateral stiffness with tees was 43.17 N/mm compared to 41.09 N/mm without (p = 0.0042).
In Lu 2025 et al., on SOP constructs, what was the effect of bending tees on **craniocaudal bending stiffness**?

A. Significant increase
B. Significant decrease
C. No significant change
D. Unmeasured
E. Dependent on fracture type

Answer: No significant change

Explanation: Craniocaudal stiffness was statistically unchanged with or without bending tees (p = 0.89).
In Lu 2025 et al., on SOP constructs, what mechanical outcome was observed across **all test constructs**, regardless of tee presence?

A. Implant breakage
B. Screw pullout
C. Bone substitute cracking
D. Plastic deformation of plate
E. Failure of jig

Answer: Plastic deformation of plate

Explanation: All constructs failed by plastic deformation, with no screw or substitute bone failures.

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 and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology Journal Issue

Huels

 et al: 

Complications and Long-Term Outcome in 30 Canine Total Hip Arthroplasties Using a Second-Generation Selective Laser Melted Screw Cup

Trefny

 et al: 

Effect of Plate Length on Construct Stiffness and Strain in a Synthetic Short-Fragment Fracture Gap Model Stabilized with a 3.5-mm Locking Compression Plate

Lomas

 et al: 

The Impact of Double Pelvic Osteotomy on Dorsolateral Subluxation in 24 Dogs

Muroi

 et al: 

A Retrospective Study of Risk Factors Associated with Refracture after Repair of Radial–Ulnar Fractures in Small-Breed Dogs

Lu

 et al: 

Comparison of Bending Stiffness between String of Pearls Plate-Bone Substitute Constructs with and without Bending Tees in a Fracture Gap Model