Literature DB >> 19104301

Biomechanical evaluation of extramedullary versus intramedullary fixation for reverse obliquity intertrochanteric fractures.

Paul R T Kuzyk1, Joel Lobo, Daniel Whelan, Rad Zdero, Michael D McKee, Emil H Schemitsch.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the 135-degree hip screw, 95-degree hip screw, and intramedullary hip screw (IMHS) for fixation of reverse obliquity intertrochanteric fractures.
METHODS: Twelve matched pairs of human femora (mean age 64 years) were obtained. Osteotomies were created in left femurs at a 33-degree angle, running inferolaterally from the lesser trochanter to mimic reverse obliquity intertrochanteric fractures. Right femora acted as controls. Three groups of left femora (n = 4 per group) had a 135-degree hip screw, 95-degree hip screw, or IMHS inserted. Strain gages were placed distal to the fracture site to monitor fragment strain. A linearly variable differential transformer measured lateral displacement of the proximal femur. An Instron tester applied vertical loads to the femoral head. Outcome measures of stiffness, strain, and lateral displacement were determined at 25-degree adduction, 25-degree abduction, 25-degree flexion, and 90-degree flexion. A 2-cm bone gap was then created at the fracture site to simulate comminution and the mechanical tests repeated. Failure load was assessed in 25-degree adduction with a bone gap.
RESULTS: There was no difference in normalized stiffness between constructs before creation of a gap. After gap creation, stiffness of all constructs was reduced (P = 0.03), and there was a significant difference in adduction (135-degree hip screw, 46.6% +/- 3%; 95-degree hip screw, 22.9% +/- 2%; and IMHS, 53.7% +/- 7.8%) (P < 0.05). Similar results were noted for abduction and flexion. There was no significant difference in lateral displacement between constructs before (P = 0.92) or after (P = 0.26) gap creation. Failure load was significantly different (135-degree hip screw, 1222 +/- 560 N; 95-degree hip screw, 2566 +/- 283 N; and IMHS, 4644 +/- 518 N) (P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: With bone contact, there were no statistically significant differences in the stiffness between the constructs. With a gap, however, the IMHS bone implant construct was significantly stiffer and had a greater load to failure than the 135-degree and 95-degree constructs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19104301     DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e318190ea7d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0890-5339            Impact factor:   2.512


  11 in total

1.  Prospective randomised study comparing screw versus helical blade in the treatment of low-energy trochanteric fractures.

Authors:  Richard Stern; Anne Lübbeke; Domizio Suva; Hermes Miozzari; Pierre Hoffmeyer
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-03-10       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Arthroplasty for unstable pertrochanteric hip fractures may offer a lower re-operation rate as compared to cephalomedullary nailing.

Authors:  Simcha G Fichman; Tatu J Mäkinen; Oleg Safir; Alex Vincent; Benjamin Lozano; Aidin Kashigar; Paul R T Kuzyk
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  The effect on outcomes of the application of circumferential cerclage cable following intramedullary nailing in reverse intertrochanteric femoral fractures.

Authors:  Ahmet Imerci; Nevres Hurriyet Aydogan; Kursad Tosun
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2018-12-06

4.  Unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures: is there a consensus on definition and treatment in Germany?

Authors:  Matthias Knobe; Gertraud Gradl; Andreas Ladenburger; Ivan S Tarkin; Hans-Christoph Pape
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Transtrochanteric fractures: evaluation of data between hospital admission and discharge.

Authors:  Christiano Saliba Uliana; Marcelo Abagge; Osvaldo Malafaia; Faruk Abrão Kalil Filho; Luiz Antonio Munhoz da Cunha
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop       Date:  2014-03-18

6.  Comparison of intramedullary and extramedullary fixation of stable intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly: a prospective randomised controlled trial exploring hidden perioperative blood loss.

Authors:  Leyi Cai; Te Wang; Lu Di; Wei Hu; Jianshun Wang
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  The medial femoral wall can play a more important role in unstable intertrochanteric fractures compared with lateral femoral wall: a biomechanical study.

Authors:  Boyuan Nie; Xueying Chen; Jing Li; Dou Wu; Qiang Liu
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  Risk factors for implant failure in reverse oblique and transverse intertrochanteric fractures treated with proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA).

Authors:  Youliang Hao; Zhishan Zhang; Fang Zhou; Hongquan Ji; Yun Tian; Yan Guo; Yang Lv; Zhongwei Yang; Guojin Hou
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2019-11-08       Impact factor: 2.359

9.  Treatment of AO/OTA 31-A3 intertrochanteric femoral fractures with a percutaneous compression plate.

Authors:  Fei Luo; Jie Shen; Jianzhong Xu; Shiwu Dong; Qiang Huang; Zhao Xie
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 2.365

10.  Finite element analysis of two cephalomedullary nails in treatment of elderly reverse obliquity intertrochanteric fractures: zimmer natural nail and proximal femoral nail antirotation-ΙΙ.

Authors:  Jian Chen; Jian-Xiong Ma; Ying Wang; Hao-Hao Bai; Lei Sun; Yan Wang; Bin Lu; Ben-Chao Dong; Ai-Xian Tian; Xin-Long Ma
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2019-12-10       Impact factor: 2.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.