| Literature DB >> 35031036 |
Jichao Liu1, Zhengwei Li1, Jie Ding2, Bingzhe Huang1, Chengdong Piao3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Femoral neck fractures in young people are usually Pauwels Type III fractures. The common treatment method are multiple parallel cannulated screws or dynamic hip screw sliding compression fixation. Due to the huge shear stress, the rate of complications such as femoral head necrosis and nonunion is still high after treatment. The aim of our study was to compare the stabilities of two fixation methods in fixating pauwels type III femoral neck fractures.Entities:
Keywords: Biomechanics; Femoral neck fracture; Medial buttress plate; Pauwels III
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35031036 PMCID: PMC8760813 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05014-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Pauwels III fractures were simulated via osteotomy by creating a fracture oriented 60° (*) from the horizonta. The two groups all used three cannulated screws combined with medial buttress plate fixation, but the fixation of the proximal fracture block was different: A) long screws with a length of 40 mm, B) Short screw with a length of 6 mm
Fig. 2The location of the strain gauge
Fig. 3Synthetic femoral models were cut from the middle diaphyseal region with a final size of 200.0 mm. The distal end was firmly fixed with polymethylmethacrylate to each specimen was oriented in 15° (*) of of adduction in the coronal plane. The displacement transducer (#) measures the relative displacement between the fracture fragments under load
Stress distribution of each group under 500 N load (Gpa)
| Measuring points | Group A (SD) | Group B (SD) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.29 (0.10) | 0.29 (0.13) | 0.945 | |
| 0.66 (0.07) | 0.67 (0.05) | 0.793 | |
| 0.70 (0.11) | 0.66 (0.16) | 0.606 | |
| 1.26 (0.31) | 1.28 (0.16) | 0.906 | |
| 2.00 (0.24) | 1.92 (0.23) | 0.535 | |
| 1.24 (0.37) | 1.22 (0.19) | 0.915 | |
| 1.41 (0.34) | 1.41 (0.24) | 0.972 | |
| 2.80 (0.27) | 2.76 (0.52) | 0.874 | |
| 0.63 (0.04) | 0.62 (0.05) | 0.721 | |
| 0.6 (0.04) | 0.55 (0.07) | 0.136 | |
| 2.12 (0.34) | 2.00 (0.38) | 0.541 | |
| 2.20 (0.23) | 2.14 (0.35) | 0.722 | |
| 4.83 (0.64) | 4.74 (0.35) | 0.764 | |
| 4.57 (0.54) | 4.63 (0.47) | 0.835 | |
| 5.79 (0.57) | 5.89 (0.51) | 0.716 | |
| 5.88 (0.42) | 6.08 (0.65) | 0.502 |
Mean values are given along with one standard deviation in parentheses
Biomechanical properties of the three fixation techniques
| Group A | Group B | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure load (N) | 1968.09 (227.29) | 1911.86 (215.55) | 0.669 |
| Stiffness(N/mm) | 399.94 (91.20) | 390.70 (104.99) | 0.842 |
Mean values are given along with one standard deviation in parentheses
Fig. 4The sample fractured during the loading process. The fracture site is near the 15 and 16 measuring points, which represents the place where the stress is concentrated