Literature DB >> 25468304

A biomechanical comparison of composite femurs and cadaver femurs used in experiments on operated hip fractures.

Trude Basso1, Jomar Klaksvik2, Unni Syversen3, Olav A Foss4.   

Abstract

Fourth generation composite femurs (4GCFs, models #3406 and #3403) simulate femurs of males <80 years with good bone quality. Since most hip fractures occur in old women with fragile bones, concern is raised regarding the use of standard 4GCFs in biomechanical experiments. In this study the stability of hip fracture fixations in 4GCFs was compared to human cadaver femurs (HCFs) selected to represent patients with hip fractures. Ten 4GCFs (Sawbones, Pacific Research Laboratories, Inc., Vashon, WA, USA) were compared to 24 HCFs from seven females and five males >60 years. Proximal femur anthropometric measurements were noted. Strain gauge rosettes were attached and femurs were mounted in a hip simulator applying a combined subject-specific axial load and torque. Baseline measurements of resistance to deformation were recorded. Standardized femoral neck fractures were surgically stabilized before the constructs were subjected to 20,000 load-cycles. An optical motion tracking system measured relative movements. Median (95% CI) head fragment migration was 0.8mm (0.4 to 1.1) in the 4GCF group versus 2.2mm (1.5 to 4.6) in the cadaver group (p=0.001). This difference in fracture stability could not be explained by observed differences in femoral anthropometry or potential overloading of 4GCFs. 4GCFs failed with fracture-patterns different from those observed in cadavers. To conclude, standard 4GCFs provide unrealistically stable bone-implant constructs and fail with fractures not observed in cadavers. Until a validated osteopenic or osteoporotic composite femur model is provided, standard 4GCFs should only be used when representing the biomechanical properties of young healthy femurs.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomechanics; Cadaver bone; Composite bone; Fracture fixation; Hip fracture; Strain

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25468304     DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.10.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  10 in total

1.  Inversion of the acetabular labrum causes increased localized contact pressure on the femoral head: a biomechanical study.

Authors:  Xipeng Wang; Kiyokazu Fukui; Ayumi Kaneuji; Kenichi Hirosaki; Hiroyasu Miyakawa; Norio Kawahara
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  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

3.  Association of the Anterolateral Thigh Osteomyocutaneous Flap With Femur Structural Integrity and Assessment of Prophylactic Fixation.

Authors:  Mitchell L Worley; Travis M Patterson; Evan M Graboyes; Yongren Wu; Robert M Brody; Joshua Hornig; Zeke Walton
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 6.223

4.  Biomechanical comparison of the femoral neck system versus InterTan nail and three cannulated screws for unstable Pauwels type III femoral neck fracture.

Authors:  Zheng Wang; Yong Yang; Gangning Feng; Haohui Guo; Zhirong Chen; Yaogeng Chen; Qunhua Jin
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 3.903

5.  Biomechanical analysis of two medial buttress plate fixation methods to treat Pauwels type III femoral neck fractures.

Authors:  Jichao Liu; Zhengwei Li; Jie Ding; Bingzhe Huang; Chengdong Piao
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  An original method of simulating the articular cartilage in the context of in vitro biomechanical studies investigating the proximal femur.

Authors:  Teodor Stefan Gheorghevici; Eugen Carata; Paul-Dan Sirbu; Ovidiu Alexa; Manuela-Gabi Poroh; Alexandru Filip; Norin Forna; Bogdan Puha
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 2.447

7.  Fixation of intraoperative proximal femoral fractures during THA using two versus three cerclage wires - a biomechanical study.

Authors:  Toni Wendler; Melanie Edel; Robert Möbius; Johannes Fakler; Georg Osterhoff; Dirk Zajonz
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Comparison of axial-rotational postoperative periprosthetic fracture of the femur in composite osteoporotic femur versus human cadaveric specimens: A validation study.

Authors:  Jonathan N Lamb; Oliver Coltart; Isaiah Adekanmbi; Hemant G Pandit; Todd Stewart
Journal:  Proc Inst Mech Eng H       Date:  2022-05-21       Impact factor: 1.763

9.  Drill holes decrease cancellous bone strength: A comparative study of 33 paired osteoporotic human and 9 paired artificial bone samples.

Authors:  Marcin Ceynowa; Krzysztof Zerdzicki; Pawel Klosowski; Rafal Pankowski; Marek Roclawski; Tomasz Mazurek
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-29       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Trochanteric stabilizing plate in the treatment of trochanteric fractures: a scoping review.

Authors:  Carl Erik Alm; Jan-Erik Gjertsen; Trude Basso; Kjell Matre; Stephan Rörhl; Jan Erik Madsen; Frede Frihagen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2021-07-23       Impact factor: 3.717

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.