| Literature DB >> 29338748 |
Fancheng Chen1, Xiaowei Huang2, Yingsun Ya1, Fenfen Ma3, Zhi Qian1, Jifei Shi4, Shuolei Guo1, Baoqing Yu5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proximal tibia fractures are one of the most familiar fractures. Surgical approaches are usually needed for anatomical reduction. However, no single treatment method has been widely established as the standard care. Our present study aims to compare the stress and stability of intramedullary nails (IMN) fixation and double locking plate (DLP) fixation in the treatment of extra-articular proximal tibial fractures.Entities:
Keywords: Comparison; Extra-articular proximal tibial fracture; Finite element analysis; Intramedullary nail; Locking plate
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29338748 PMCID: PMC5771144 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-017-0707-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1The creation of fracture model and fixation implements used in this study. a Intact tibia. b Tibia with fracture gap. c Model D (fixed by intramedullary nail (IN) fixation). d Model A (fixed by 150 mm/200 mm DLP fixation). e Model B (fixed by 200 mm/250 mm DLP fixation). f Model C (fixed by 250 mm/300 mm DLP fixation)
The number of nodes and elements in each model
| Variable | Number of nodes | Number of elements |
|---|---|---|
| Model A | 58,340 | 306,698 |
| Model B | 60,988 | 321,289 |
| Model C | 65,532 | 343,105 |
| Model D | 30,881 | 168,298 |
Fig. 2The loading and boundary conditions as well as the distribution. a The 2500-N vertical force established to simulate the physiological compressive load on an adult knee. b The distal tibia was fixed effectively. c The distribution of vertical force on the articular surface
Fig. 3Stress distribution on models fixed with different fixation models. a Model A (fixed by 150 mm/200 mm DLP fixation). b Model B (fixed by 200 mm/250 mm DLP fixation). c Model C (fixed by 250 mm/300 mm DLP fixation). d Model D (fixed by intramedullary nail (IN) fixation)
Fig. 4Comparison of mean stress value of models. a Displacement of models (x-axis) (mm). b Displacement of models (y-axis) (mm). c Displacement of models (z-axis) (mm). d Displacement of models (sum) (mm). e Stress on the models (EVMS) (MPa). f Maximal stress on the models (EVMS) (MPa)
The comparison of the structural results in the finite element analysis of each model
| Variable | Model A | Model B | Model C | Model D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Displacement of models ( | − 1.53 ± 1.03*** | − 0.57 ± 0.32*** | − 0.39 ± 0.22*** | 0.16 ± 0.30 |
| Displacement of models ( | − 0.21 ± 1.00*** | 0.25 ± 0.73*** | − 0.39 ± 0.23*** | − 0.64 ± 0.56 |
| Displacement of models ( | − 7.52 ± 3.13*** | − 5.19 ± 3.03*** | − 3.28 ± 1.81*** | − 4.31 ± 3.12 |
| Displacement of models (sum) (mm) | 7.93 ± 2.80*** | 5.94 ± 2.22*** | 3.45 ± 1.59*** | 4.39 ± 3.14 |
***P < 0.0001, compared with model D
Fig. 5Stress distribution on models fixed with different fixation models. a Model A (fixed by 150 mm/200 mm DLP fixation). b Model B (fixed by 200 mm/250 mm DLP fixation). c Model C (fixed by 250 mm/300 mm DLP fixation). d Model D (fixed by intramedullary nail (IN) fixation)