Literature DB >> 25467710

The biomechanical effect of bone quality and fracture topography on locking plate fixation in periprosthetic femoral fractures.

Andreas Leonidou1, Mehran Moazen2, Panagiotis Lepetsos3, Simon M Graham4, George A Macheras5, Eleftherios Tsiridis6.   

Abstract

Optimal management of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) around a well fixed prosthesis (Vancouver B1) remains controversial as adequate fixation needs to be achieved without compromising the stability of the prosthesis. The aim of this study was to highlight the effect of bone quality i.e. canal thickness ratio (CTR), and fracture topography i.e. fracture angle and its position in relation to the stem, on the biomechanics of a locking plate for a Vancouver B1 fracture. A previously corroborated simplified finite element model of a femur with a cemented total hip replacement stem was used in this study. Canal thickness ratio (CTR) and fracture topography were altered in several models and the effect of these variations on the von Mises stress on the locking plate as well as the fracture displacement was studied. Increasing the CTR led to reduction of the von Mises stress on the locking plate as well as the fracture movement. In respect to the fracture angle with the medial cortex, it was shown that acute angles resulted in lower von Mises stress on the plate as opposed to obtuse angles. Furthermore, acute fracture angles resulted in lower fracture displacement compared to the other fractures considered here. Fractures around the tip of the stem had the same biomechanical effect on the locking plate. However, fractures more distal to the stem led to subsequent increase of stress, strain, and fracture displacement. Results highlight that in good bone quality and acute fracture angles, single locking plate fixation is perhaps an appropriate management method. On the contrary, for poor bone quality and obtuse fracture angles alternative management methods might be required as the fixation might be under higher risk of failure. Clinical studies for the management of PFF are required to further support our findings.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone quality; Finite element analysis; Fracture angle; Fracture level; Fracture topography; Periprosthetic femoral fracture

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25467710     DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.10.060

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Injury        ISSN: 0020-1383            Impact factor:   2.586


  7 in total

1.  Is immediate weight bearing safe for periprosthetic distal femur fractures treated by locked plating? A feasibility study in 52 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Wade R Smith; Jason W Stoneback; Steven J Morgan; Philip F Stahel
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2016-12-07

2.  Revision Arthroplasty Using a MUTARS® Prosthesis in Comminuted Periprosthetic Fracture of the Distal Femur.

Authors:  Hyung Suk Choi; Jae Hwi Nho; Chung Hyun Kim; Sai Won Kwon; Jong Seok Park; You Sung Suh
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 2.759

3.  A methodology for the generation and non-destructive characterisation of transverse fractures in long bones.

Authors:  Fernando Y Zapata-Cornelio; Zhongmin Jin; David C Barton; Alison C Jones; Ruth K Wilcox
Journal:  Bone Rep       Date:  2018-04-25

4.  Finite element analysis of the femoral diaphysis of fresh-frozen cadavers with computed tomography and mechanical testing.

Authors:  Yasushi Wako; Junichi Nakamura; Yusuke Matsuura; Takane Suzuki; Shigeo Hagiwara; Michiaki Miura; Yuya Kawarai; Masahiko Sugano; Kento Nawata; Kensuke Yoshino; Sumihisa Orita; Kazuhide Inage; Seiji Ohtori
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 2.359

5.  Differences between proximal bone remodeling in femoral revisions for aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fractures using the Wagner SL stem.

Authors:  Gábor Friebert; Csaba Gombár; András Bozó; Ilona Polyák; Ádám Brzózka; Krisztián Sisák
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  The impact of stem fixation method on Vancouver Type B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture management.

Authors:  Katherine Wang; Eustathios Kenanidis; Zakareya Gamie; Khurram Suleman; Mark Miodownik; Mahsa Avadi; David Horne; Jonathan Thompson; Eleftherios Tsiridis; Mehran Moazen
Journal:  SICOT J       Date:  2022-01-06

7.  Prediction of fracture load and stiffness of the proximal femur by CT-based specimen specific finite element analysis: cadaveric validation study.

Authors:  Michiaki Miura; Junichi Nakamura; Yusuke Matsuura; Yasushi Wako; Takane Suzuki; Shigeo Hagiwara; Sumihisa Orita; Kazuhide Inage; Yuya Kawarai; Masahiko Sugano; Kento Nawata; Seiji Ohtori
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-12-16       Impact factor: 2.362

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.