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 1 Torque (N/m) recorded for fibula pro-tibia and standard locking plate constructs (torque at 30 degrees external rotation)
| Construct | Fixation type | Torque (N/m) |
| 1 | Fibula pro-tibia | 3.723 |
| 2 | Fibula pro-tibia | 5.692 |
| 3 | Fibula pro-tibia | 4.695 |
| 4 | Fibula pro-tibia | 4.043 |
| 5 | Fibula pro-tibia | 3.954 |
| 6 | Standard locking plate | 0.829 |
| 7 | Standard locking plate | 1.709 |
| 8 | Standard locking plate | 1.539 |
| 9 | Standard locking plate | 1.155 |
| 10 | Standard locking plate | 2.022 |
- 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