| Literature DB >> 23431263 |
Sheng Zhang1, Kairui Zhang, Yimin Wang, Wei Feng, Bowei Wang, Bin Yu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to use three-dimensional (3D) computational modeling to compare the geometric fitness of these two kinds of proximal femoral intramedullary nails in the Chinese femurs. Computed tomography (CT) scans of a total of 120 normal adult Chinese cadaveric femurs were collected for analysis. With the three-dimensional (3D) computational technology, the anatomical fitness between the nail and bone was quantified according to the impingement incidence, maximum thicknesses and lengths by which the nail was protruding into the cortex in the virtual bone model, respectively, at the proximal, middle, and distal portions of the implant in the femur. The results showed that PFNA-II may fit better for the Chinese proximal femurs than InterTan, and the distal portion of InterTan may perform better than that of PFNA-II; the anatomic fitness of both nails for Chinese patients may not be very satisfactory. As a result, both implants need further modifications to meet the needs of the Chinese population.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23431263 PMCID: PMC3575634 DOI: 10.1155/2013/978485
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1The femur and implant models were reconstructed with software and assembled according to the paper guidelines. (a) The femoral cortex model; (b) the intact femur model. (c) The femoral cortex differentiated from the intact femur model. (d) The PFNA-II model; (e) the implant assembled with the femoral model.
Figure 2Proximal fitness of the implant with the femoral model. (a) The InterTan assembled with femoral model; the region within the red circle was the region of interest, the model was cut along the black line, and the distance between the top of the great trochanter and the center of the impingement region was depicted in green line. (b) The red line indicated the maximum thickness of the impingement area. (c) Within region the red circle was the proximal end of the implant protruding from the top of the great trochanter.
Figure 3The model was assembled by PFNA-II and femur. (a) The region within the red circle was the region of interest. (b) The impingement area can be easily distinguished within the red circle, and the model was cut along the black line; (c) after the cut of the model, the maximum thickness of the impingement area and the distance from the inner cortex can be measured according to the direction of the red line.
The average fitness value of impingement on the proximal portion of the implant (mm).
| InterTan ( | PFNA-II ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thickness | 2.53 ± 0.58 | 1.27 ± 0.15 | 0.017 |
| Length | 8.61 ± 1.84 | 10.62 ± 2.26 | 0.183 |
| Distance from the top of the great trochanter | 57.31 ± 5.42 | 62.82 ± 5.87 | 0.213 |
The average fitness value on the middle and distal portion of the implant (mm).
| InterTan ( | PFNA-II ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impingement thickness on the middle shaft of the femur | 2.11 ± 0.36 | 1.62 ± 0.38 | 0.073 |
| Impingement length on the middle shaft of the femur | 60.62 ± 8.37 | 58.48 ± 7.38 | 0.361 |
| Distance from the top of the great trochanter to the central of the impingement area | 154.43 ± 7.72 | 148.74 ± 8.87 | 0.652 |
| Distance between the nail and the inner cortex in the lateral view | 4.17 ± 0.35 | 6.95 ± 0.68 | 0.035 |