Literature DB >> 27120073

Effect of varus and valgus alignment on implant loading after proximal femur fracture fixation.

Meir Marmor1, Kate Liddle2, Jenni Buckley3, Amir Matityahu4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: More than 10 % of proximal femur fractures repaired with either a sliding hip screw and side plate (SHS-P) or a sliding hip screw and intramedullary nail (SHS-IMN) demonstrate varus malreduction. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of varus or valgus loading on comminuted intertrochanteric fractures repaired with SHS-P or SHS-IMN constructs.
METHODS: Unstable intertrochanteric fractures with segmental comminution were generated in 12 cadaver proximal femurs, six of which were fixed with an SHS-P and six with an SHS-IMN. Both implants had a strain gauge at the lag screw-nail-plate interface to assess implant load bearing. The load on the implants was measured with the specimens in neutral position and at 5°, 10°, and 15° of varus and valgus.
RESULTS: Loads on both SHS-IMN and SHS-P constructs were significantly increased when loading the implants in varus and significantly decreased when loading the implants in valgus. Unlike the SHS-IMN, the SHS-P trended toward increased load bearing at 15° varus (159.1 vs. 118.5 %, P = .065) and trended toward less load bearing at 15° valgus (42.3 vs. 59.8 %, P = .06).
CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of implant choice, avoiding varus loading on the fixation construct reduces the load on the implant. SHS-P constructs may be more affected by varus or valgus malalignment than SHS-IMN constructs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomechanical testing; Fracture fixation; Hip fracture; Intertrochanteric fracture; Intramedullary nailing; Malreduction; Pertrochanteric fracture; Proximal femur fracture; Varus

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27120073     DOI: 10.1007/s00590-016-1746-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol        ISSN: 1633-8065


  24 in total

1.  Reliability of classification systems for intertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur in experienced orthopaedic surgeons.

Authors:  Wen-Jie Jin; Li-Yang Dai; Yi-Min Cui; Qing Zhou; Lei-Sheng Jiang; Hua Lu
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2005-04-07       Impact factor: 2.586

2.  The new proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in daily practice: results of a multicentre clinical study.

Authors:  R K J Simmermacher; J Ljungqvist; H Bail; T Hockertz; A J H Vochteloo; U Ochs; Chr v d Werken
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2008-06-25       Impact factor: 2.586

3.  Statically equivalent load and support conditions produce different hip joint contact pressures and periacetabular strains.

Authors:  B K Bay; A J Hamel; S A Olson; N A Sharkey
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  The effect of fracture pattern stability on implant loading in OTA type 31-A2 proximal femur fractures.

Authors:  Meir Marmor; Kate Liddle; Murat Pekmezci; Jenni Buckley; Amir Matityahu
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.512

5.  Patients with femoral neck and intertrochanteric fractures. Are they the same?

Authors:  K J Koval; G B Aharonoff; A S Rokito; T Lyon; J D Zuckerman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Treatment of intertrochanteric fracture with the Gamma AP locking nail or by a compression hip screw--a randomised prospective trial.

Authors:  S R Park; J S Kang; H S Kim; W H Lee; Y H Kim
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Dynamic hip screw with trochanteric stabilizing plate in the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a comparative study with the Gamma nail and compression hip screw.

Authors:  J E Madsen; L Naess; A K Aune; A Alho; A Ekeland; K Strømsøe
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 2.512

8.  The treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: results using an intramedullary nail with integrated cephalocervical screws and linear compression.

Authors:  Andreas H Ruecker; M Rupprecht; M Gruber; M Gebauer; F Barvencik; D Briem; J M Rueger
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.512

Review 9.  Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults.

Authors:  Martyn J Parker; Helen H G Handoll
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2008-07-16

Review 10.  Unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures in the elderly.

Authors:  Dieter M Lindskog; Michael R Baumgaertner
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.020

View more
  3 in total

1.  Hip fractures in 2016, where do we stand and have we made any progress?

Authors:  Cyril Mauffrey; Steven Stacey; Mark Hake; David Hak
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-03-09

2.  Biomechanical study of extramedullary and intramedullary fixation in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric reversed-tilt fractures of the femur.

Authors:  Guo-Liang Lu; Song-Jun Li; Wen-Xue Li
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2022-02

3.  Loss of Reduction after Cephalomedullary Nail Fixation of Intertrochanteric Femoral Fracture: A Brief Report.

Authors:  Yao Pang; Qi-Fang He; Liu-Long Zhu; Zhen-Yu Bian; Mao-Qiang Li
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 2.071

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.