Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Orthop. Aug 18, 2021; 12(8): 548-554
Published online Aug 18, 2021. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v12.i8.548
Published online Aug 18, 2021. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v12.i8.548
Table 2 Torque (N/m) recorded for fibula pro-tibia and standard locking plate constructs (maximum torque at failure)
| Construct | Fixation type | Maximum torque at failure (N/m) |
| 1 | Fibula pro-tibia | 4.270 |
| 2 | Fibula pro-tibia | 5.970 |
| 3 | Fibula pro-tibia | 5.176 |
| 4 | Fibula pro-tibia | 5.468 |
| 5 | Fibula pro-tibia | 4.513 |
| 6 | Standard locking plate | 1.187 |
| 7 | Standard locking plate | 2.869 |
| 8 | Standard locking plate | 1.519 |
| 9 | Standard locking plate | 2.497 |
| 10 | Standard locking plate | 3.422 |
- Citation: Okoro T, Teoh KH, Tanaka H. Fibula pro-tibia vs standard locking plate fixation in an ankle fracture saw bone model. World J Orthop 2021; 12(8): 548-554
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v12/i8/548.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v12.i8.548