← 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

Know What Matters in the Literature - and Why

We distill peer-reviewed surgical studies into clinically relevant summaries and
exam-style questions, so you can make informed decisions with confidence.

Free Access. No Spam. Just Smarter Surgical Learning

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.

Access the full library of surgical summaries and exam-style questions.

Get Instant Access

Educational content developed independently and supported by Simini.

The maker of Simini Protect Lavage.

Review More Key Summaries from this Veterinary Surgery Journal Issue

Power

 et al: 

Incidence and severity of short‐term incisional complications after intraoperative local infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine in dogs

Rocheleau

 et al: 

Arthroscopic sampling, diagnosis and treatment of infected total hip replacements in dogs: Eight cases

Mattioli

 et al: 

Peripheral sentinel lymphadenectomy in 163 dogs: Postoperative surgical complications and comparison between intraoperative dissection techniques

Rocheleau

 et al: 

Ex vivo evaluation of arthroscopically assisted shoulder stabilization in dogs using an intra-articular aiming device

Larose

 et al: 

Near-infrared fluorescence cholangiography in dogs: A pilot study