Literature DB >> 21768904

A comparative biomechanical analysis of fixation devices for unstable femoral neck fractures: the Intertan versus cannulated screws or a dynamic hip screw.

Martin Rupprecht1, Lars Grossterlinden, Andreas H Ruecker, Alexander Novo de Oliveira, Kay Sellenschloh, Jakob Nüchtern, Klaus Püschel, Michael Morlock, Johannes Maria Rueger, Wolfgang Lehmann.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: First introduced in 2005, the "Intertan" (IT), an intramedullary nail with two cephalocervical screws, has become an increasingly popular option for treating intertrochanteric fractures. The purpose of this study was to identify the utility of this device for stabilization of unstable femoral neck fractures compared with cannulated screws (CS) and a dynamic hip screw (DHS).
METHODS: Twenty-four human cadaveric femurs were harvested and assigned to three groups that were matched with regard to bone mineral density (BMD). Standardized Pauwels-Type-III fractures were osteomized with a custom-made saw guide and fixated by an "IT," three CS, or a DHS. All constructs were biomechanically tested in a servohydraulic testing machine with a physiologic mechanical axis loading of the femoral head (700 N), cyclical compression to 1,400 N (10,000 cycles; 2 Hz), and loading to failure. All specimens were compared with respect to the number of survived cycles, mechanical strength, head displacement, load to failure, and failure mechanism.
RESULTS: Regardless of the fixation, the mechanical strength of the stabilized femurs was significantly decreased to 71% compared with the intact femurs (100%). During cyclical testing 46% of the constructs (6 CS, 4 DHS, and 1 IT) failed. There was no difference between the mechanical strength of all survived constructs regarding the BMD, but the BMD of the failed specimens was significantly reduced compared with the surviving femurs (0.71 g/cm² ± 0.18 g/cm² vs. 1.07 g/cm² ± 0.33 g/cm²; p < 0.05). IT femurs survived significantly longer than CS specimens (IT, 9,063 cycles ± 2,480 cycles vs. CS, 3,325 cycles ± 3,885 cycles vs. DHS, 5,716 cycles ± 4,448 cycles; p < 0.01), endured higher failure loads (IT, 4,929 N ± 1,105 N vs. CS, 3,421 N ± 20 N vs. DHS, 3,505 N ± 905 N; p < 0.05), and presented a less inferior head displacement (IT, 8.5 mm ± 1.6 mm vs. CS, 16.4 mm ± 6.7 mm vs. DHS, 14.5 mm ± 6.4 mm; p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that (1) none of the tested devices restore a comparable mechanical strength in the fractured specimens compared with the intact femurs, and (2) the "IT" possesses some biomechanical benefits for internal fixation of unstable femoral neck fractures compared with DHS and CS. Because the IT constructs failed with an inferior femoral neck fracture, complicating the mandatory anchorage of a prosthetic stem in a revision operation, more biomechanical experiments using the IT in the presence of a posterior comminution defect are required, along with clinical outcome studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21768904     DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31820e86e6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Trauma        ISSN: 0022-5282


  31 in total

1.  A comparative study between multiple cannulated screws and dynamic hip screw for fixation of femoral neck fracture in adults.

Authors:  Babak Siavashi; Arash Aalirezaei; Mersad Moosavi; Mohammad Reza Golbakhsh; Dariush Savadkoohi; Mohammad Javad Zehtab
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Clinical results of treatment of garden type 1 and 2 femoral neck fractures in patients over 70-year old.

Authors:  S K Han; H S Song; R Kim; S H Kang
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 3.693

3.  Biomechanical evaluation of the risk of secondary fracture around short versus long cephalomedullary nails.

Authors:  William E Daner; John R Owen; Jennifer S Wayne; Ryan B Graves; Mark C Willis
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2017-06-08

4.  A new configuration of cannulated screw fixation in the treatment of vertical femoral neck fractures.

Authors:  Baokun Zhang; Jingwen Liu; Yi Zhu; Wei Zhang
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-02-08       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Screw-blade fixation systems in Pauwels three femoral neck fractures: a biomechanical evaluation.

Authors:  Matthias Knobe; Simon Altgassen; Klaus-Jürgen Maier; Gertraud Gradl-Dietsch; Chris Kaczmarek; Sven Nebelung; Kajetan Klos; Bong-Sung Kim; Boyko Gueorguiev; Klemens Horst; Benjamin Buecking
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-08-06       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  A comparative biomechanical study of proximal femoral nail (InterTAN) and proximal femoral nail antirotation for intertrochanteric fractures.

Authors:  Yanfeng Huang; Chunlin Zhang; Yi Luo
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-10-05       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 7.  Conversion Total Hip Arthroplasty After Failed Basicervical Hip Fracture Fixation: A Case Report and Review of Literature.

Authors:  Vineet Tyagi; Oluwaseun Akinbo
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2017

8.  Clinical and functional outcomes of internal fixation with intertrochanteric antegrade nail in older patients with proximal extracapsular femoral fractures.

Authors:  M Galli; V Ciriello; L Bocchino; N M Gangemi; M Peruzzi; E Marzetti
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 3.693

9.  What is the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur? A biomechanical analysis.

Authors:  Wolfgang Lehmann; Martin Rupprecht; Jacob Nuechtern; Daniel Melzner; Kai Sellenschloh; Jan Kolb; Florian Fensky; Michael Hoffmann; Klaus Püschel; Michael Morlock; Johannes M Rueger
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Proposal for a New Fixation Method for Pauwels Type III Femoral Neck Fracture-Metaphyseal Stem: A Finite-Element Analysis.

Authors:  Anderson Freitas; Fabrício Reichert Barin; Leonardo Rigobello Battaglion; Hélio Ismael da Costa; Eduardo Duarte Santos; Hugo Amando Rosado; Marcos Giordano; Vincenzo Giordano; Antonio Carlos Shimano
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2021-05-15       Impact factor: 1.251

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.