| Literature DB >> 35168366 |
Chang-Ho Jung1, Yonghan Cha2, Ha Seung Yoon3, Chan Ho Park4, Jun-Il Yoo5, Jung-Taek Kim3, Yongho Jeon1.
Abstract
AIMS: In this study, we aimed to explore surgical variations in the Femoral Neck System (FNS) used for stable fixation of Pauwels type III femoral neck fractures.Entities:
Keywords: CT scans; Femoral Neck; Femoral neck fracture; Femoral neck system; Femur; Finite element analysis; diaphysis; femoral heads; femoral neck fractures; finite element analysis; finite elements models; stable fixation; subchondral bone
Year: 2022 PMID: 35168366 PMCID: PMC8882323 DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.112.BJR-2021-0282.R1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bone Joint Res ISSN: 2046-3758 Impact factor: 5.853
Fig. 1Femur models with Pauwels III femur neck fracture were virtually fixed with the Femoral Neck System and were established with different combinations of surgical variations. a) to c) The bolt was placed in the central trajectory with respect to the neck cortical corridor in three models in the upper row, while d) to f) the bolt was placed in the inferior trajectory in three models in the lower row. The bolt measured 100 mm in length in the two models in the central column (b, e), which provides the shortest gap between the subchondral bone and implant tip without violating the articular surface. The length of bolts in the two models in the left column (a, d) was 10 mm shorter than the standard bolt. There was a gap between the plate and diaphysis and a 5 mm longer bolt to restore the position of the bolt tip in the two models in the right column (c, f).
Fig. 2Meshing of the elements and mapping of the material properties were performed after assembling the femur and implant models. a) The models were meshed into tetrahedral elements with a maximum size of 1 mm, achieving a mean of 6,177,864 nodes (6,172,059 to 6,186,454) and 4,487,265 elements (4,483,402 to 4,492,613). b) The material properties of bone were assigned to the elements using the mapping procedure based on the grey values of the CT scan.
Element information consisting of finite elements models.
| Finite elements model | 90-Middle | 100-Middle | 105-Middle | 90-Inferior | 100-Inferior | 105-Inferior |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of nodes | 6,173,263 | 6,177,003 | 6,186,454 | 6,172,059 | 6,173,326 | 6,185,080 |
| Number of elements | 4,485,557 | 4,486,451 | 4,492,613 | 4,484,310 | 4,483,402 | 4,491,254 |
|
| ||||||
| Mean | 8.56 × 10-1 | 8.56 × 10-1 | 8.56 × 10-1 | 8.56 × 10-1 | 8.56 × 10-1 | 8.56 × 10-1 |
| SD | 9.02 × 10-2 | 9.04 × 10-2 | 9.05 × 10-2 | 9.03 × 10-2 | 9.02 × 10-2 | 9.04 × 10-2 |
| Maximum | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Minimum | 4.28 × 10-2 | 4.26 × 10-2 | 2.84 × 10-2 | 4.28 × 10-2 | 4.26 × 10-2 | 2.84 × 10-2 |
SD, standard deviation.
Material properties of Titanium – 6% Aluminium – 7% Niobium (Ti-6Al-7Nb).
| Parameters | values |
|---|---|
| Density, gram/cc | 4.52 |
| Young’s modulus, GPa | 105 |
| Yielding strength, MPa | 800 |
| Tensile strength, MPa | 900 |
| Poisson’s ratio | 0.34 |
Fig. 3The femur was loaded in the single-leg stance in each finite element model. a) A load vector of 1,752.2 N corresponds to 300% for a body weight of 59.6 kg. Abductor force was applied to the greater trochanter. b) The load vector (red dashed arrow) had an angle of 24° in the frontal plane and 17° in the axial plane. Weight load (green solid line) was transferred to the surface of hemisphere at an incline of 45° and retroversion of 25°.
Fig. 4Band graphs depicting the interfragmentary gap. The results were arranged in the same configuration rule as in Figure 1.
The interfragmentary motion and stress on the fracture surface with surgical variation in the Femoral Neck System.
| Variable | Trajectory of bolt | Length of bolt and antirotation screw | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 mm shorter bolt | Standard length | 5 mm gap between plate and diaphysis | ||
| Maximum interfragmentary gap (amount of change (reference)) | Centre | 0.075 mm ( + 7.4% (R = 0.070)) | 0.070 mm | 0.065 mm (-6.9% (R = 0.070)) |
| Inferior | 0.073 mm ( + 6.2% (R = 0.069), | 0.069 mm (-1.5% (R = 0.070)) | 0.064 mm (-6.7% (R = 0.069), | |
| Maximum interfragmentary sliding distance (amount of change (reference)) | Centre | 0.180 mm ( + 1.0% (R = 0.178)) | 0.178 mm | 0.165 mm (-7.4% (R = 0.178)) |
| Inferior | 0.191 mm ( + 1.3% (R = 0.189), | 0.189 mm ( + 5.8% (R = 0.178)) | 0.175 mm (-7.0% (R = 0.189), | |
| Maximum interfragmentary compressive stress (amount of change (reference)) | Centre | 11.29 MPa ( + 3.1% (R = 10.96)) | 10.96 MPa | 10.83 MPa (-1.1% (R = 10.96)) |
| Inferior | 15.34 MPa ( + 3.6% (R = 14.81), | 14.81 MPa ( + 35.2% (R = 10.96)) | 14.19 MPa (-4.2% (R = 14.81), | |
| Maximum interfragmentary shear stress (amount of change (reference)) | Centre | 5.19 MPa ( + 3.0% (R = 5.04)) | 5.04 MPa | 4.98 MPa (-1.2% (R = 5.04)) |
| Inferior | 7.06 MPa ( + 1.9% (R = 6.93), | 6.93 MPa ( + 37.5% (R = 5.04)) | 6.53 MPa (-5.8% (R = 6.93), | |
R, reference.
Fig. 5Band graphs depicting the interfragmentary sliding distance. The results were arranged with the same configuration rule as in Figure 1.
Fig. 6Band graphs depicting the interfragmentary compression. The results were arranged with the same configuration rule as in Figure 1.
Fig. 7Band graphs depicting the interfragmentary shear stress. The results were arranged with the same configuration rule as in Figure 1.