{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03411675511751327, 'fraction_numerical': 0.026535253980288095, 'mean_word_length': 4.7894736842105265, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Biomechanical comparison of three internal fixations for treatment of slipped capital femoral epiphysis in immature dogs.

The biomechanical strength and stiffness of 3 fixation techniques used to repair acute slipped capital femoral epiphysis were evaluated in bone specimens from immature dogs. A servohydraulic testing machine was used to create slipped capital femoral epiphysis in 9 pairs of femurs by shearing the capital femoral epiphysis along the physis in a craniocaudal direction. The slip was reduced and repaired with 1, 2, or 3 double-pointed, 1.6-mm (0.062-inch) smooth pin(s) and retested. The strength and stiffness of each intact femur (which served as the control) and repaired femur were compared. Results of the study indicated that differences among the failure strengths of 1- and 2-pin fixations and their respective controls were not significant; however, the 3-pin fixation was 29% stronger than its control and was 60 and 45% stronger than the 1- and 2-pin fixations, respectively. One- and 2-pin fixations were 34 and 24% less stiff than their respective controls, whereas the stiffness of the 3-pin fixation was similar to its control. The 2- and 3-pin fixations were 48 and 76% stiffer, respectively, than the 1-pin fixation, but were not significantly different, compared with each other.