BACKGROUND: A new device for fixation of hip fractures the Medoff plate was biomechanically tested and compared with the Ambi plate and Gamma nail. METHODS: Six pairs of human cadaveric femurs were used. The characteristics evaluated were structural stiffness, strain distribution, and modes of failure. Results were compared with the Ambi plate and Gamma nail biomechanical studies from a previous study that used the same methods. RESULTS: The Medoff plate was stiffer than the other two implants for intertrochanteric fractures, and for segmental subtrochanteric fracture. The Medoff plate was more load sharing than the other implants in these fracture configurations. The mean load to failure was lower than for the Ambi plate or the Gamma nail. CONCLUSION: The Medoff plate is a better load-sharing device than the Ambi (DHS) or Gamma nail systems. The main concern is its structural weakness. The implant failed at loads 50% less than other devices. The greatest risk of implant failure is with unstable subtrochanteric fractures.
BACKGROUND: A new device for fixation of hip fractures the Medoff plate was biomechanically tested and compared with the Ambi plate and Gamma nail. METHODS: Six pairs of human cadaveric femurs were used. The characteristics evaluated were structural stiffness, strain distribution, and modes of failure. Results were compared with the Ambi plate and Gamma nail biomechanical studies from a previous study that used the same methods. RESULTS: The Medoff plate was stiffer than the other two implants for intertrochanteric fractures, and for segmental subtrochanteric fracture. The Medoff plate was more load sharing than the other implants in these fracture configurations. The mean load to failure was lower than for the Ambi plate or the Gamma nail. CONCLUSION: The Medoff plate is a better load-sharing device than the Ambi (DHS) or Gamma nail systems. The main concern is its structural weakness. The implant failed at loads 50% less than other devices. The greatest risk of implant failure is with unstable subtrochanteric fractures.
Authors: Sebastian Eberle; Claus Gerber; Geert von Oldenburg; Sven Hungerer; Peter Augat Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2009-03-31 Impact factor: 4.176