Cargando…

In vitro comparison of resistance to implant failure in unstable trochanteric fractures fixed with intramedullary single screw versus double screw device

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the resistance of intramedullary single screw device (Gamma nail) and double screw device proximal femoral nail (PFN) in unstable trochanteric fractures in terms of the number of cycles sustained, subsidence and implant failure in an axial loading...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rastogi, Amit, Arun, GR, Singh, Vakil, Singh, Anant, Singh, Ashutosh K, Kumaraswamy, Vinay
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4052032/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24932039
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.132524
_version_ 1782320173056786432
author Rastogi, Amit
Arun, GR
Singh, Vakil
Singh, Anant
Singh, Ashutosh K
Kumaraswamy, Vinay
author_facet Rastogi, Amit
Arun, GR
Singh, Vakil
Singh, Anant
Singh, Ashutosh K
Kumaraswamy, Vinay
author_sort Rastogi, Amit
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the resistance of intramedullary single screw device (Gamma nail) and double screw device proximal femoral nail (PFN) in unstable trochanteric fractures in terms of the number of cycles sustained, subsidence and implant failure in an axial loading test in cadaveric femora. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted on 18 dry cadaveric femoral specimens, 9 of these were implanted with a Gamma nail and 9 with PFN. There was no significant difference found in average dual energy X-ray absorptiometry value between both groups. The construct was made unstable (AO type 31A3.3) by removing a standard sized posteromedial wedge. These were tested on a cyclic physiological loading machine at 1 cycle/s with a load of 200 kg. The test was observed for 50,000 loading cycles or until implant failure, whichever occurred earlier. Peak displacements were measured and analysis was done to determine construct stiffness and gap micromotion in axial loading. RESULT: It was observed that there was statistically significant difference in terms of displacement at the fracture gap and overall construct stiffness of specimens of both groups. PFN construct group showed a mean subsidence of 1.02 mm and Gamma nail construct group showed mean subsidence of 2.36 mm after cycling. The average stiffness of Gamma nail group was 62.8 ± 8.4 N/mm which was significantly lower than average stiffness of the PFN group (80.4 ± 5.9 N/mm) (P = 0.03). In fatigue testing, 1 out of 9 PFN bone construct failed, while 5 of 9 Gamma nail bone construct failed. CONCLUSION: When considering micromotion (subsidence) and incidence of implant/screw failure, double screw device (PFN) had statistically significant lower micromotion across the fracture gap with axial compression and lower incidence of implant failure. Hence, double screw device (PFN) construct had higher stability compared to single screw device (GN) in an unstable trochanteric fracture femur model.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4052032
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40520322014-06-13 In vitro comparison of resistance to implant failure in unstable trochanteric fractures fixed with intramedullary single screw versus double screw device Rastogi, Amit Arun, GR Singh, Vakil Singh, Anant Singh, Ashutosh K Kumaraswamy, Vinay Indian J Orthop Original Article BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the resistance of intramedullary single screw device (Gamma nail) and double screw device proximal femoral nail (PFN) in unstable trochanteric fractures in terms of the number of cycles sustained, subsidence and implant failure in an axial loading test in cadaveric femora. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted on 18 dry cadaveric femoral specimens, 9 of these were implanted with a Gamma nail and 9 with PFN. There was no significant difference found in average dual energy X-ray absorptiometry value between both groups. The construct was made unstable (AO type 31A3.3) by removing a standard sized posteromedial wedge. These were tested on a cyclic physiological loading machine at 1 cycle/s with a load of 200 kg. The test was observed for 50,000 loading cycles or until implant failure, whichever occurred earlier. Peak displacements were measured and analysis was done to determine construct stiffness and gap micromotion in axial loading. RESULT: It was observed that there was statistically significant difference in terms of displacement at the fracture gap and overall construct stiffness of specimens of both groups. PFN construct group showed a mean subsidence of 1.02 mm and Gamma nail construct group showed mean subsidence of 2.36 mm after cycling. The average stiffness of Gamma nail group was 62.8 ± 8.4 N/mm which was significantly lower than average stiffness of the PFN group (80.4 ± 5.9 N/mm) (P = 0.03). In fatigue testing, 1 out of 9 PFN bone construct failed, while 5 of 9 Gamma nail bone construct failed. CONCLUSION: When considering micromotion (subsidence) and incidence of implant/screw failure, double screw device (PFN) had statistically significant lower micromotion across the fracture gap with axial compression and lower incidence of implant failure. Hence, double screw device (PFN) construct had higher stability compared to single screw device (GN) in an unstable trochanteric fracture femur model. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4052032/ /pubmed/24932039 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.132524 Text en Copyright: © Indian Journal of Orthopaedics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Rastogi, Amit
Arun, GR
Singh, Vakil
Singh, Anant
Singh, Ashutosh K
Kumaraswamy, Vinay
In vitro comparison of resistance to implant failure in unstable trochanteric fractures fixed with intramedullary single screw versus double screw device
title In vitro comparison of resistance to implant failure in unstable trochanteric fractures fixed with intramedullary single screw versus double screw device
title_full In vitro comparison of resistance to implant failure in unstable trochanteric fractures fixed with intramedullary single screw versus double screw device
title_fullStr In vitro comparison of resistance to implant failure in unstable trochanteric fractures fixed with intramedullary single screw versus double screw device
title_full_unstemmed In vitro comparison of resistance to implant failure in unstable trochanteric fractures fixed with intramedullary single screw versus double screw device
title_short In vitro comparison of resistance to implant failure in unstable trochanteric fractures fixed with intramedullary single screw versus double screw device
title_sort in vitro comparison of resistance to implant failure in unstable trochanteric fractures fixed with intramedullary single screw versus double screw device
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4052032/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24932039
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.132524
work_keys_str_mv AT rastogiamit invitrocomparisonofresistancetoimplantfailureinunstabletrochantericfracturesfixedwithintramedullarysinglescrewversusdoublescrewdevice
AT arungr invitrocomparisonofresistancetoimplantfailureinunstabletrochantericfracturesfixedwithintramedullarysinglescrewversusdoublescrewdevice
AT singhvakil invitrocomparisonofresistancetoimplantfailureinunstabletrochantericfracturesfixedwithintramedullarysinglescrewversusdoublescrewdevice
AT singhanant invitrocomparisonofresistancetoimplantfailureinunstabletrochantericfracturesfixedwithintramedullarysinglescrewversusdoublescrewdevice
AT singhashutoshk invitrocomparisonofresistancetoimplantfailureinunstabletrochantericfracturesfixedwithintramedullarysinglescrewversusdoublescrewdevice
AT kumaraswamyvinay invitrocomparisonofresistancetoimplantfailureinunstabletrochantericfracturesfixedwithintramedullarysinglescrewversusdoublescrewdevice