Cargando…

A biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture

BACKGROUND: The treatment of Hoffa fractures is challenging, for which the ideal fixation and approach are still controversial. Osteosynthesis with plate or screws fixation in different trajectories have been described in previous literature. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanica...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yao, Shu-Hsin, Su, Wei-Ren, Hsu, Kai-Lan, Chen, Yueh, Hong, Chih-Kai, Kuan, Fa-Chuan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7385970/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32723376
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03527-4
_version_ 1783563874238201856
author Yao, Shu-Hsin
Su, Wei-Ren
Hsu, Kai-Lan
Chen, Yueh
Hong, Chih-Kai
Kuan, Fa-Chuan
author_facet Yao, Shu-Hsin
Su, Wei-Ren
Hsu, Kai-Lan
Chen, Yueh
Hong, Chih-Kai
Kuan, Fa-Chuan
author_sort Yao, Shu-Hsin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The treatment of Hoffa fractures is challenging, for which the ideal fixation and approach are still controversial. Osteosynthesis with plate or screws fixation in different trajectories have been described in previous literature. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical strength and stability of two types of screw trajectories used to stabilize displaced coronal fractures of the lateral femoral condyle. METHODS: Sixteen synthetic femurs (Sawbones Pacific Research Laboratories, Vashon, WA) were divided into two groups. A vertical osteotomy was performed to mimic a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture. Group A (n = 8) was fixed with screw in anteroposterior direction (A-P) screws. Group B (n = 8) was fixed with crossed screws. Both groups were tested with a nondestructive axial compression aligned with the femur axis. After that, 10,000 cyclic loading tests were applied to the specimen with a force ranging between 200 to 600 N, and the interfragmental displacement was recorded, respectively, after 10, 100, 1000 and 10,000 cycles. Finally, a destructive axial compression test was applied until catastrophic failure. RESULTS: There were no statistical between-group differences in regard to the average axial stiffness, interfragmental displacement, and ultimate failure load. The average axial stiffness of the A-P screw was comparable to that of the crossed screw (361 ± 113 N/mm vs. 379 ± 65 N/mm, p = 0.753). All specimens completed the entire cyclic loading test without catastrophic failure, and the interfragmental displacement after loading for 10,000 cycles was 1.36 ± 0.40 mm for the A-P screw and 1.29 ± 0.61 mm for the crossed screw, there were no statistical differences between the groups (p = 0.823). The average ultimate failure loads for the A-P and crossed screws were 1214 ± 127 N and 1109 ± 156 N, respectively (p = 0.172). CONCLUSIONS: Based on our in vitro study, the crossed screws can provide comparable mechanical performance as traditional A-P screws in Hoffa fracture fixation. Considering the screws trajectories are commonly determined by the choice of surgical approach, the current study provides support from a biomechanical perspective for the application of crossed screws in direct lateral approach.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7385970
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73859702020-07-30 A biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture Yao, Shu-Hsin Su, Wei-Ren Hsu, Kai-Lan Chen, Yueh Hong, Chih-Kai Kuan, Fa-Chuan BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: The treatment of Hoffa fractures is challenging, for which the ideal fixation and approach are still controversial. Osteosynthesis with plate or screws fixation in different trajectories have been described in previous literature. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical strength and stability of two types of screw trajectories used to stabilize displaced coronal fractures of the lateral femoral condyle. METHODS: Sixteen synthetic femurs (Sawbones Pacific Research Laboratories, Vashon, WA) were divided into two groups. A vertical osteotomy was performed to mimic a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture. Group A (n = 8) was fixed with screw in anteroposterior direction (A-P) screws. Group B (n = 8) was fixed with crossed screws. Both groups were tested with a nondestructive axial compression aligned with the femur axis. After that, 10,000 cyclic loading tests were applied to the specimen with a force ranging between 200 to 600 N, and the interfragmental displacement was recorded, respectively, after 10, 100, 1000 and 10,000 cycles. Finally, a destructive axial compression test was applied until catastrophic failure. RESULTS: There were no statistical between-group differences in regard to the average axial stiffness, interfragmental displacement, and ultimate failure load. The average axial stiffness of the A-P screw was comparable to that of the crossed screw (361 ± 113 N/mm vs. 379 ± 65 N/mm, p = 0.753). All specimens completed the entire cyclic loading test without catastrophic failure, and the interfragmental displacement after loading for 10,000 cycles was 1.36 ± 0.40 mm for the A-P screw and 1.29 ± 0.61 mm for the crossed screw, there were no statistical differences between the groups (p = 0.823). The average ultimate failure loads for the A-P and crossed screws were 1214 ± 127 N and 1109 ± 156 N, respectively (p = 0.172). CONCLUSIONS: Based on our in vitro study, the crossed screws can provide comparable mechanical performance as traditional A-P screws in Hoffa fracture fixation. Considering the screws trajectories are commonly determined by the choice of surgical approach, the current study provides support from a biomechanical perspective for the application of crossed screws in direct lateral approach. BioMed Central 2020-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7385970/ /pubmed/32723376 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03527-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Yao, Shu-Hsin
Su, Wei-Ren
Hsu, Kai-Lan
Chen, Yueh
Hong, Chih-Kai
Kuan, Fa-Chuan
A biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture
title A biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture
title_full A biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture
title_fullStr A biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture
title_full_unstemmed A biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture
title_short A biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture
title_sort biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a letenneur type i hoffa fracture
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7385970/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32723376
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03527-4
work_keys_str_mv AT yaoshuhsin abiomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT suweiren abiomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT hsukailan abiomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT chenyueh abiomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT hongchihkai abiomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT kuanfachuan abiomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT yaoshuhsin biomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT suweiren biomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT hsukailan biomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT chenyueh biomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT hongchihkai biomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT kuanfachuan biomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture