Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A biomechanical comparison of shape memory compression staples and mechanical compression staples: compression or distraction?

  • Experimental Study
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Compression staples are a popular form of fixation for osteotomy and arthrodesis. “Mechanical compression” or “shape memory” designs are commercially available. We performed a biomechanical study comparing these designs. A load cell measured compression across a simulated fusion site. The two designs available were tested and compared. The effect of altering staple limb length was also assessed. The limbs of all mechanical compression staples diverged causing inconsistent compression and distraction. Shape memory staples all achieved consistent compression across the fusion site with significantly greater maximum force when compared to mechanical compression staples (P < 0.001). Staple limb length did not appear to alter compression force generated. Mechanical compression staples cause a distractive force, and we therefore suggest alternate forms of fixation for arthrodesis. Shape memory staples do provide compression and may be suitable for arthrodesis and osteotomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Austin RT (1973) Compression staples in high tibial osteotomy. J R Coll Surg Edinb 18:177–179

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chang HC, Nyland J, Nawab A, Burden R, Caborn DN (2005) Biomechanical comparison of the bioabsorbable RetroScrew system, BioScrew XtraLok with stress equalization tensioner, and 35 mm delta screws for tibialis anterior graft-tibial tunnel fixation in porcine tibiae. Am J Sports Med 33:1057–1064

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Choudhary RK, Theruvil B, Taylor GR (2004) First metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis: a new technique of internal fixation by using memory compression staples. J Foot and Ankle Surg 43:312–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dai KR (1983) Orthopaedic application of a Ni–Ti shape-memory staple alloy compression staple. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 21:343–345

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dai KR, Hou XK, Sun YT, Tang RG, Qui SJ, Ni C (1993) Treatment of intra-articular fractures with shape memory compression staples. Injury 24:651–655

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Malal JJG, Hedge G, Ferdinand RD (2006) Tarsal joint fusion using memory compression staples. J Foot Ankle Surg 45:113–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mereau TM, Ford TC (2006) Nitinol compression staples for bone fixation in foot surgery. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 96:102–106

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Neufeld SK, Parks BG, Naseef GS, Melamed EA, Schon LC (2002) Arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint: a biomechanical study comparing memory compression staples, cannulated screws and a dorsal plate. Foot Ankle Int 23:97–101

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ronchetti PJ, Topper SM (2006) Lunocapitate fusion the OSStaple compression staple. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg 10:231–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shibuya N, Manning SN, Meszaros A, Budny AM, Malay DS, Yu GV (2007) A compression force comparison study among three staple fixation systems. J Foot and Ankle Surg 46:7–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sizensky JA (2004) Forefoot and midfoot arthritis: what’s new in surgical management? Curr Opin Orthop 15:55–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Strakee SD, Kroon FHM, Bos KE (2001) Fixation methods in mandibular reconstruction using fibula grafts: a comparative study into the relative strength of three different types of osteosynthesis. Head and Neck 23:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tang RG, Dai KR, Chen YQ (1996) Application of NiTi staple in metatarsal osteotomy. Biomed Mater Eng 6:307–312

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Trieb K (2005) Management of the foot in rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg 87-B:1171–1177

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. North Hampshire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, Hampshire, RG24 9NA, UK

    David Farr & Amer Karim

  2. St Andrews Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Michael Lutz

  3. Imperial College, London, UK

    James Calder

Authors
  1. David Farr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amer Karim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Lutz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James Calder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Calder.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Farr, D., Karim, A., Lutz, M. et al. A biomechanical comparison of shape memory compression staples and mechanical compression staples: compression or distraction?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18, 212–217 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0887-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0887-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation