← Articles

Welsh et al: Biomechanical analysis of orthogonal and unilateral locking plate constructs in a fracture gap model
Veterinary Surgery 4, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

  • Compared unilateral plating (UP) vs orthogonal plating (OP) with 2.0, 2.4, and 3.0 mm plates (OP2.0, OP2.4, OP3.0).
  • Model: acetal homopolymer (Delrin) rod with 29 mm fixed fracture gap, loaded axially (4–196 N, 90,000 cycles).
  • OP constructs had 2.5–4.1x higher strength and 3.0–4.2x higher stiffness than UP constructs (p < .0002).
  • UP had 3.5–4.1x higher gap strain than OP groups (p < .0075).
  • All OP groups exceeded 1000 N max load before failure (vs 424 N for UP).
  • Greater implant size in OP groups further increased performance.
  • All constructs survived fatigue loading; 3.5 mm plates showed deformation, especially UP; OP plates remained intact.

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

Welsh et al: Biomechanical analysis of orthogonal and unilateral locking plate constructs in a fracture gap model
Veterinary Surgery 4, 2025

🔍 Key Findings

  • Compared unilateral plating (UP) vs orthogonal plating (OP) with 2.0, 2.4, and 3.0 mm plates (OP2.0, OP2.4, OP3.0).
  • Model: acetal homopolymer (Delrin) rod with 29 mm fixed fracture gap, loaded axially (4–196 N, 90,000 cycles).
  • OP constructs had 2.5–4.1x higher strength and 3.0–4.2x higher stiffness than UP constructs (p < .0002).
  • UP had 3.5–4.1x higher gap strain than OP groups (p < .0075).
  • All OP groups exceeded 1000 N max load before failure (vs 424 N for UP).
  • Greater implant size in OP groups further increased performance.
  • All constructs survived fatigue loading; 3.5 mm plates showed deformation, especially UP; OP plates remained intact.

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 Welsh 2025 et al., on orthogonal plating, how did unilateral plating compare to orthogonal plating?

A. Similar in all groups
B. Higher in OP2.4
C. Higher in OP3.0
D. 3.5–4.1x higher in UP
E. Lower in UP

Answer: 3.5–4.1x higher in UP

Explanation: Unilateral plating showed 3.5–4.1x greater gap strain than OP groups (p < .0075).
In Welsh 2025 et al., on orthogonal plating, which configuration had the highest axial stiffness during static load testing?

A. UP
B. OP2.0
C. OP2.4
D. OP3.0
E. OP2.0 + IM pin

Answer: OP3.0

Explanation: OP3.0 had the highest stiffness (1772 ± 117 N/mm), showing a clear correlation between implant size and stiffness.
In Welsh 2025 et al., on orthogonal plating, what was observed in all constructs?

A. All failed before 90k cycles
B. OP3.0 had significant deformation
C. UP constructs loosened
D. All remained intact after 90k cycles
E. OP2.0 fractured

Answer: All remained intact after 90k cycles

Explanation: All constructs, including UP and OP variants, survived the full fatigue testing protocol.
In Welsh 2025 et al., on orthogonal plating, what was the failure load for the OP2.0 construct?

A. 424 N
B. 1068 N
C. 1275 N
D. 1515 N
E. 1736 N

Answer: 1068 N

Explanation: The OP2.0 construct failed at 1068 ± 62 N compared to 424 N in UP constructs.
In Welsh 2025 et al., on orthogonal plating, what change was consistently noted in all 3.5 mm plates?

A. Plate fracture
B. Decreased thread pitch
C. Permanent bending or plastic deformation
D. Thread stripping
E. Bolt shearing

Answer: Permanent bending or plastic deformation

Explanation: All 3.5 mm plates showed deformation; OP plates remained intact post-testing.

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

Oramas

 et al: 

Evaluation of sternal recumbency for laparoscopic right lateral liver lobectomy through a transdiaphragmatic port in a canine cadaveric population

Schuenemann

 et al: 

Biceps tenodesis with a bioabsorbable bone anchor using BoneWelding technology: Results in six clinical cases (5 dogs)

Matz

 et al: 

Ex vivo comparison of different thoracoabdominal stapler sizes for typhlectomy in canine cadavers

Moore

 et al: 

Association between divisional location and short-term outcome of liver mass resection in 124 dogs

Beamon

 et al: 

Effect of calcanean bone‐tunnel orientation for teno‐osseous repair in a canine common calcanean tendon avulsion model