Shih-Hao Chen1, Ming-Chieh Chiang2, Ching-Hua Hung3, Shang-Chih Lin4, Hsiao-Wei Chang2. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Tzu-Chi General Hospital at Taichung, and Tzu Chi University, Taiwan. 2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. 3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. Electronic address: chhung@mail.nctu.edu.tw. 4. Graduate Institute of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Periprosthetic distal femur fracture after total knee arthroplasty due to the stress-shielding phenomenon is a challenging problem. Retrograde intramedullary nail (RIMN) or locking plate (LP) fixation with/without a strut allograft has been clinically used via less invasive stabilization surgery (LISS) for the treatment of these periprosthetic fractures. However, their biomechanical differences in construct stability and implant stress have not been extensively studied, especially for the osteoporotic femur. METHODS: This study used a finite-element method to evaluate the differences between RIMN, LP, and LP/allograft fixation in treating periprosthetic distal femur fractures. There were sixteen variations of two fracture angles (transverse and oblique), two loading conditions (compression and rotation), and four bony conditions (one normal and three osteoporotic). Construct stiffness, fracture micromotion, and implant stress were chosen as the comparison indices. RESULTS: The LP/allograft construct provides both lateral and middle supports to the displaced femur. Comparatively, the LP and RIMN constructs, respectively, transmit the loads through the lateral and middle paths, thus providing more unstable support to the construct and high stressing on the implants. The fracture pattern plays a minor role in the construct stabilization of the three implants. In general, the biomechanical performances of the RIMN and LP constructs were comparable and significantly inferior to those of the LP/allograft construct. The bone quality should be evaluated prior to the selection of internal fixators. CONCLUSIONS: The LP/allograft construct significantly stabilizes the fracture gap, reduces the implant stress, and serves as the recommended fixation for periprosthetic distal femur fracture.
PURPOSE: Periprosthetic distal femur fracture after total knee arthroplasty due to the stress-shielding phenomenon is a challenging problem. Retrograde intramedullary nail (RIMN) or locking plate (LP) fixation with/without a strut allograft has been clinically used via less invasive stabilization surgery (LISS) for the treatment of these periprosthetic fractures. However, their biomechanical differences in construct stability and implant stress have not been extensively studied, especially for the osteoporotic femur. METHODS: This study used a finite-element method to evaluate the differences between RIMN, LP, and LP/allograft fixation in treating periprosthetic distal femur fractures. There were sixteen variations of two fracture angles (transverse and oblique), two loading conditions (compression and rotation), and four bony conditions (one normal and three osteoporotic). Construct stiffness, fracture micromotion, and implant stress were chosen as the comparison indices. RESULTS: The LP/allograft construct provides both lateral and middle supports to the displaced femur. Comparatively, the LP and RIMN constructs, respectively, transmit the loads through the lateral and middle paths, thus providing more unstable support to the construct and high stressing on the implants. The fracture pattern plays a minor role in the construct stabilization of the three implants. In general, the biomechanical performances of the RIMN and LP constructs were comparable and significantly inferior to those of the LP/allograft construct. The bone quality should be evaluated prior to the selection of internal fixators. CONCLUSIONS: The LP/allograft construct significantly stabilizes the fracture gap, reduces the implant stress, and serves as the recommended fixation for periprosthetic distal femur fracture.
Authors: Tatu J Mäkinen; Herman S Dhotar; Simcha G Fichman; Matthew J Gunton; Mitchell Woodside; Oleg Safir; David Backstein; Thomas L Willett; Paul R T Kuzyk Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 3.075