Preventing Cerclage Failure: How Many Twists Are Needed to Avoid Untwisting and Maximize Fixation Strength
Clicks: 3
ID: 315789
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
0.6
/100
3 views
2 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #363 of 432 articles by views in the british journal of surgery
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 432 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Background Cerclage wires are widely used for fixation of long-bone spiral and peri-implant fractures. However, the optimal number of twists to maximize biomechanical stability is not defined and is largely based on surgical experience. This study investigated the influence of twist number and wire diameter on cerclage stability. Aims To determine how twist number and wire diameter affect failure mode, stiffness, and load-bearing capacity of cerclage wires, and to identify the minimum twist number required to prevent untwisting. Methods A total of 120 stainless-steel cerclage constructs were produced using 1.0-mm, 1.25-mm, and 1.5-mm wires with 4, 6, 8, or 10 twists. Twist formation was standardized with controlled axial load of torque, followed by uniform trimming. Static tensile testing assessed stiffness, load-to-yield, elongation, and load-to-failure. Hand-twisted 1.5-mm constructs underwent cyclic loading at 700 N until elongation of 2, 3, or 5 mm or catastrophic failure. Results Across all diameters, low twist counts failed predominantly by untwisting, while higher twist counts shifted failure toward wire breakage. In 1.0-mm wires, breakage occurred only at 10twists (50%), whereas all lower twist counts failed by untwisting (p=0.040). In 1.25-mm wires, breakage appeared only at 8 and 10twists (p>0.9). Stiffness increased with twist number: 1.0-mm wires from 34.1±2.4 N/mm (4twists) to 41.5±5.0 N/mm (10 twists); 1.25-mm from 44.0±5.5 to 50.5±5.4 N/mm; and 1.5-mm peaked at 8 twists (92.8±17.0 N/mm) before decreasing at 10 twists (82.3±11.8 N/mm). Load-to-failure increased with diameter and twist number, reaching 660.7±139.6 N (1.0-mm, 10 twists), 858.0±220.0 N (1.25-mm, 8twists), and 1873.7±80.6 N (1.5mm, 10twists). In cyclic testing, six-twist 1.5-mm constructs showed the greatest durability, requiring the most cycles to reach 2,3,and 5mm elongation. Conclusion Increasing twist number consistently shifts failure from untwisting to wire breakage. Six to eight twists provide optimal biomechanical performance, with six twists representing the minimum required to prevent untwisting across all clinically used wire diameters.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7163363099
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | M Kraus, L van Rossenberg, B van de Wall, F Beeres, B C Link, B Gueorguiev, T Pastor |
| Journal | the british journal of surgery |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/bjs/znag055.060
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.