Cargando…
The Analysis of Biomechanical Properties of Proximal Femur after Implant Removal
Introduction. To compare the biomechanical stability of the femur following the removal of proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA-II) and dynamic hip screw (DHS). Material and Methods. 56 paired cadaveric femurs were used as experimental and control groups. In the experimental group, PFNA-II and D...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997010/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27597807 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4987831 |
_version_ | 1782449688854659072 |
---|---|
author | Yang, Jae Hyuk Jung, Tae Gon Honnurappa, Arjun Rupanagudi Cha, Jae Min Ham, Chang Hwa Kim, Tae Yoon Suh, Seung Woo |
author_facet | Yang, Jae Hyuk Jung, Tae Gon Honnurappa, Arjun Rupanagudi Cha, Jae Min Ham, Chang Hwa Kim, Tae Yoon Suh, Seung Woo |
author_sort | Yang, Jae Hyuk |
collection | PubMed |
description | Introduction. To compare the biomechanical stability of the femur following the removal of proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA-II) and dynamic hip screw (DHS). Material and Methods. 56 paired cadaveric femurs were used as experimental and control groups. In the experimental group, PFNA-II and DHS were randomly inserted into femurs on both sides and then removed. Thereafter, compression load was applied until fracture occurred; biomechanical stability of the femurs and associated fracture patterns were studied. Results. The ultimate load and stiffness of the control group were 6227.8 ± 1694.1 N and 990.5 ± 99.8 N/mm, respectively. These were significantly higher than experimental group (p = 0.014, <0.001) following the removal of PFNA-II (4085.6 ± 1628.03 N and 656.3 ± 155.3 N/mm) and DHS (4001.9 ± 1588.3 N and 656.3 ± 155.3 N/mm). No statistical differences in these values were found between the 2 device groups (p = 0.84, 0.71), regardless of age groups. However, fracture patterns were different between two devices, intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. Conclusions. Mechanical stability of the proximal femurs does not differ after the removal of 2 different of fixation devices regardless of the age. However, it was significantly lower compared to an intact femur. Different fracture patterns have been shown following the removal of different fixation devices as there are variations in the site of stress risers for individual implants. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4997010 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Hindawi Publishing Corporation |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49970102016-09-05 The Analysis of Biomechanical Properties of Proximal Femur after Implant Removal Yang, Jae Hyuk Jung, Tae Gon Honnurappa, Arjun Rupanagudi Cha, Jae Min Ham, Chang Hwa Kim, Tae Yoon Suh, Seung Woo Appl Bionics Biomech Research Article Introduction. To compare the biomechanical stability of the femur following the removal of proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA-II) and dynamic hip screw (DHS). Material and Methods. 56 paired cadaveric femurs were used as experimental and control groups. In the experimental group, PFNA-II and DHS were randomly inserted into femurs on both sides and then removed. Thereafter, compression load was applied until fracture occurred; biomechanical stability of the femurs and associated fracture patterns were studied. Results. The ultimate load and stiffness of the control group were 6227.8 ± 1694.1 N and 990.5 ± 99.8 N/mm, respectively. These were significantly higher than experimental group (p = 0.014, <0.001) following the removal of PFNA-II (4085.6 ± 1628.03 N and 656.3 ± 155.3 N/mm) and DHS (4001.9 ± 1588.3 N and 656.3 ± 155.3 N/mm). No statistical differences in these values were found between the 2 device groups (p = 0.84, 0.71), regardless of age groups. However, fracture patterns were different between two devices, intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. Conclusions. Mechanical stability of the proximal femurs does not differ after the removal of 2 different of fixation devices regardless of the age. However, it was significantly lower compared to an intact femur. Different fracture patterns have been shown following the removal of different fixation devices as there are variations in the site of stress risers for individual implants. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016 2016-08-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4997010/ /pubmed/27597807 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4987831 Text en Copyright © 2016 Jae Hyuk Yang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Yang, Jae Hyuk Jung, Tae Gon Honnurappa, Arjun Rupanagudi Cha, Jae Min Ham, Chang Hwa Kim, Tae Yoon Suh, Seung Woo The Analysis of Biomechanical Properties of Proximal Femur after Implant Removal |
title | The Analysis of Biomechanical Properties of Proximal Femur after Implant Removal |
title_full | The Analysis of Biomechanical Properties of Proximal Femur after Implant Removal |
title_fullStr | The Analysis of Biomechanical Properties of Proximal Femur after Implant Removal |
title_full_unstemmed | The Analysis of Biomechanical Properties of Proximal Femur after Implant Removal |
title_short | The Analysis of Biomechanical Properties of Proximal Femur after Implant Removal |
title_sort | analysis of biomechanical properties of proximal femur after implant removal |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997010/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27597807 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4987831 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yangjaehyuk theanalysisofbiomechanicalpropertiesofproximalfemurafterimplantremoval AT jungtaegon theanalysisofbiomechanicalpropertiesofproximalfemurafterimplantremoval AT honnurappaarjunrupanagudi theanalysisofbiomechanicalpropertiesofproximalfemurafterimplantremoval AT chajaemin theanalysisofbiomechanicalpropertiesofproximalfemurafterimplantremoval AT hamchanghwa theanalysisofbiomechanicalpropertiesofproximalfemurafterimplantremoval AT kimtaeyoon theanalysisofbiomechanicalpropertiesofproximalfemurafterimplantremoval AT suhseungwoo theanalysisofbiomechanicalpropertiesofproximalfemurafterimplantremoval AT yangjaehyuk analysisofbiomechanicalpropertiesofproximalfemurafterimplantremoval AT jungtaegon analysisofbiomechanicalpropertiesofproximalfemurafterimplantremoval AT honnurappaarjunrupanagudi analysisofbiomechanicalpropertiesofproximalfemurafterimplantremoval AT chajaemin analysisofbiomechanicalpropertiesofproximalfemurafterimplantremoval AT hamchanghwa analysisofbiomechanicalpropertiesofproximalfemurafterimplantremoval AT kimtaeyoon analysisofbiomechanicalpropertiesofproximalfemurafterimplantremoval AT suhseungwoo analysisofbiomechanicalpropertiesofproximalfemurafterimplantremoval |