Literature DB >> 22638607

The locking attachment plate for proximal fixation of periprosthetic femur fractures--a biomechanical comparison of two techniques.

Mark Lenz1, Markus Windolf, Thomas Mückley, Gunther O Hofmann, Michael Wagner, Robert G Richards, Karsten Schwieger, Boyko Gueorguiev.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Mechanical properties of a locking attachment plate construct (LAP-LCP), allowing bicortical screw placement laterally to the prosthesis stem, are compared to a cerclage-LCP construct.
METHODS: Eight right synthetic femora with implanted uncemented hip endoprosthesis were cut distally and fixed with LCP, monocortical locking screws and either LAP (n = 4) or cerclage (n = 4). Cyclic testing was performed with monotonically increasing sinusoidal load until failure. Relative movements at the plate-femur interface were registered by motion tracking. Statistical differences were detected by unpaired t-test and general linear model repeated measures.
RESULTS: Stiffness of the LAP-LCP was significantly higher at the beginning (875.4 N/mm ± 29.8) and after 5000 cycles (1213.0 N/mm ± 101.1) compared to the cerclage-LCP (644.96 N/mm ± 50.1 and 851.9 N/mm ± 81.9), with p = 0.013. Relative movements for AP-bending (B) and axial translation (T) of the LAP-LCP at the beginning (0.07° ± 0.02, 0.20 mm ± 0.08), after 500 cycles (0.16° ± 0.10, 0.26 mm ± 0.07) and after 5000 cycles (0.26° ± 0.11, 0.31 mm ± 0.07) differed significantly from the cerclage-LCP (beg.: 0.26° ± 0.04, 0.28 mm ± 0.05; 500 cyc: 0.47° ± 0.03, 0.53 mm ± 0.07; 5000 cyc.: 0.63° ± 0.18, 0.79 mm ± 0.13), with B: p = 0.02, T: p = 0.04. Relative movements for medial bending were not significantly different between the two constructs. Cycles to failure (criterion 1 mm axial translation) differed significantly between LAP-LCP (19,519 ± 1,758) and cerclage-LCP (11,265 ± 2,472), with p = 0.035.
CONCLUSIONS: Biomechanically, the LAP-LCP construct improves proximal fixation of periprosthetic fractures compared to the cerclage-LCP construct.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22638607      PMCID: PMC3427437          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-012-1574-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  22 in total

1.  Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures with two different minimal invasive angle-stable plates: Biomechanical comparison studies on cadaveric bones.

Authors:  L Konstantinidis; O Hauschild; N A Beckmann; A Hirschmüller; N P Südkamp; P Helwig
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2010-06-17       Impact factor: 2.586

2.  Stabilisation of periprosthetic fractures with angular stable internal fixation: a report of 13 cases.

Authors:  M J Kääb; U Stöckle; M Schütz; J Stefansky; C Perka; N P Haas
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2005-12-23       Impact factor: 3.067

3.  Internal forces and moments in the femur during walking.

Authors:  G N Duda; E Schneider; E Y Chao
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  Effect on dynamic mechanical stability and interfragmentary movement of angle-stable locking of intramedullary nails in unstable distal tibia fractures: a biomechanical study.

Authors:  Boyko Gueorguiev; Dirk Wähnert; Daniel Albrecht; Ben Ockert; Markus Windolf; Karsten Schwieger
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  2011-02

Review 5.  Fractures of the femur after hip replacement.

Authors:  C P Duncan; B A Masri
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  1995

6.  Up to 10 years follow up of the use of 71 cortical allografts (strut-grafts) for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures.

Authors:  P Virolainen; J Mokka; M Seppänen; K Mäkelä
Journal:  Scand J Surg       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.360

7.  The Mennen plate: unsuitable for elderly femoral peri-prosthetic fractures.

Authors:  S Kamineni; H E Ware
Journal:  Injury       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 2.586

8.  Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures associated with cemented femoral stems: a biomechanical comparison of locked plating and conventional cable plates.

Authors:  Eric Fulkerson; Kenneth Koval; Charles F Preston; Kazuho Iesaka; Frederick J Kummer; Kenneth A Egol
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.512

9.  The biomechanics of ipsilateral intertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures: a comparison of 5 fracture fixation techniques.

Authors:  Alison McConnell; Rad Zdero; Khalid Syed; Christopher Peskun; Emil Schemitsch
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.512

10.  Less invasive stabilisation system (LISS) for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures: a 3-year follow-up.

Authors:  Philipp Kobbe; Ralf Klemm; Heinrich Reilmann; Thomas J Hockertz
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2008-03-05       Impact factor: 2.586

View more
  12 in total

1.  Minimally invasive surgery with locking plate for periprosthetic femoral fractures: technical note.

Authors:  Matthieu Ehlinger; Benjamin Scheibling; Michel Rahme; David Brinkert; Benoit Schenck; Antonio Di Marco; Philippe Adam; François Bonnomet
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-08-08       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Biomechanical comparison of two angular stable plate constructions for periprosthetic femur fracture fixation.

Authors:  Dirk Wähnert; Richard Schröder; Martin Schulze; Peter Westerhoff; Michael Raschke; Richard Stange
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-10-11       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  [Treatment of periprosthetic fractures : new concepts in operative treatment].

Authors:  D Wähnert; B Schliemann; M J Raschke; C Kösters
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Tangential Bicortical Locked Fixation Improves Stability in Vancouver B1 Periprosthetic Femur Fractures: A Biomechanical Study.

Authors:  Gregory S Lewis; Cyrus T Caroom; Hwabok Wee; Darin Jurgensmeier; Shane D Rothermel; Michelle A Bramer; John Spence Reid
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.512

5.  Periprosthetic fracture fixation in Vancouver B1 femoral shaft fractures: A biomechanical study comparing two plate systems.

Authors:  Dirk Wähnert; Marcus Müller; Hendrik Tiedemann; Sven Märdian; Michael J Raschke; Clemens Kösters
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2020-02-08       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Biomechanical Assessment of Three Osteosynthesis Constructs by Periprosthetic Humerus Fractures.

Authors:  Afif Harb; Bastian Welke; Emmanouil Liodakis; Sam Razaeian; Dafang Zhang; Christian Krettek; Christof Hurschler; Nael Hawi
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2020-10-26

7.  Clinical and radiological results of patients treated with orthogonal double plating for periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Authors:  Franz Josef Müller; Michael Galler; Bernd Füchtmeier
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-08-12       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  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

9.  Experimental and numerical investigation into the influence of loading conditions in biomechanical testing of locking plate fracture fixation devices.

Authors:  A MacLeod; A H R W Simpson; P Pankaj
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 5.853

10.  A New System for Periprosthetic Fracture Stabilization-A Biomechanical Comparison.

Authors:  Daniel Rau; Gabriele Rußow; Mark Heyland; Dag Wulsten; Clemens Kösters; Werner Schmölz; Sven Märdian
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 4.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.