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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yang, Jae Hyuk, Jung, Tae Gon, Honnurappa, Arjun Rupanagudi, Cha, Jae Min, Ham, Chang Hwa, Kim, Tae Yoon, Suh, Seung Woo
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