Literature DB >> 27130397

Comparison of fixation techniques in Vancouver type AG periprosthetic femoral fracture: a biomechanical study.

Kerim Sarıyılmaz1, Murat Korkmaz2, Okan Özkunt3, Halil Can Gemalmaz3, Mustafa Sungur3, Murat Baydoğan4, İbrahim Kaya3, Fatih Dikici3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to biomechanically compare cable, trochanteric grip plate, and locking plate techniques in Vancouver type AG fracture model in an in vitro test environment.
METHODS: Fifteen pieces of fourth-generation synthetic femora were separated into 3 groups of 5 models each. A greater trochanteric fracture model was created after femoral stem implantation. Group 1 was fixated with only cable, Group 2 with trochanteric grip plate, and Group 3 with locking plate. Horizontal stiffness, axial stiffness, and failure loads were compared between the groups.
RESULTS: In horizontal compression tests, Group 3 had the highest values, but the only statistically significant difference was between the locking plate group and cable group. Axial distraction test results showed that mean stiffness of Group 1 was 94.6±9.44 N/mm, that of Group 2 was 174.8±28.64 N/mm, and that of Group 3 was 185.6±71.64 N/mm. While locking plate versus cable fixation and grip plate fixation versus cable fixation showed statistically significant differences (p<0.05), comparison of locking plate versus grip plate fixation showed no statistically significant difference (p>0.05). In axial failure load test, Group 3 had the highest results. The only significant difference was between the locking plate and cable groups (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: In Vancouver type AG fractures stable fixation may be achieved with grip plate fixation and locking plates, with the former ensuring more stable osteosynthesis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27130397     DOI: 10.3944/AOTT.2015.15.0298

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc        ISSN: 1017-995X            Impact factor:   1.511


  3 in total

1.  A New System for Periprosthetic Fracture Stabilization-A Biomechanical Comparison.

Authors:  Daniel Rau; Gabriele Rußow; Mark Heyland; Dag Wulsten; Clemens Kösters; Werner Schmölz; Sven Märdian
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 2.  Biomechanics of Osteoporotic Fracture Fixation.

Authors:  Marianne Hollensteiner; Sabrina Sandriesser; Emily Bliven; Christian von Rüden; Peter Augat
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 5.096

3.  The race for the classification of proximal periprosthetic femoral fractures : Vancouver vs Unified Classification System (UCS) - a systematic review.

Authors:  Clemens Schopper; Matthias Luger; Günter Hipmair; Bernhard Schauer; Tobias Gotterbarm; Antonio Klasan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 2.362

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.