Cargando…
Conventional versus helical blade screw insertion following the removal of the femoral head screw: a biomechanical evaluation using trochanteric gamma 3 locking nail versus PFN antirotation
OBJECTIVE: When a hip screw needs to be changed, choosing between the conventional (C-type) and helical blade (H-type) types is difficult. In this biomechanical study, we compared these two screw types relative to the type of the initial screw used. METHODS: C- or H-type screws were inserted (leadin...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8428115/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34496801 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04658-y |
_version_ | 1783750315630133248 |
---|---|
author | Cho, Hong Man Park, Kwang Min Jung, Tae Gon Park, Ji Yeon Lee, Young |
author_facet | Cho, Hong Man Park, Kwang Min Jung, Tae Gon Park, Ji Yeon Lee, Young |
author_sort | Cho, Hong Man |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: When a hip screw needs to be changed, choosing between the conventional (C-type) and helical blade (H-type) types is difficult. In this biomechanical study, we compared these two screw types relative to the type of the initial screw used. METHODS: C- or H-type screws were inserted (leading screw) in three types of polyurethane bone models (Sawbone, Pacific Research Laboratories, Inc., Washington, USA: 130 × 180 × 40 mm) of different bone mineral densities (pounds per cubic feet [PCF] 5, 80 kg/m(3); PCF 10, 160 kg/m(3); and PCF 15, 240 kg/m(3)), and then successively or alternately inserted (following screw) after the leading screw removal. An original model (original C and H) of a leading screw without removal was created as a control. The strengths of resistance to pullout (PO) and rotational stress were measured. For each experimental condition, there were 30 experimental models. RESULTS: The original C screw was superior in PO strength, and the original H-type screw was superior in rotational strength. When the C- or H-type screw was the leading screw, using the C-type screw again as the following screw (C1-C2, H1-C2) showed the greatest resistance to PO, and using the H-type screw as the following screw (C1-H2, H1-H2) showed superior resistance to rotational strength. However, the rotational strength of the C2 screw decreased by more than 50% compared with that of the original C screw. Moreover, the PO and rotational strengths of the H2 screw decreased to less than 30% overall compared with those of the original H screw. CONCLUSION: The H-type screw should be used for second-time screw insertion procedures in cases where it is difficult to choose between PO and rotational strengths. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8428115 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84281152021-09-10 Conventional versus helical blade screw insertion following the removal of the femoral head screw: a biomechanical evaluation using trochanteric gamma 3 locking nail versus PFN antirotation Cho, Hong Man Park, Kwang Min Jung, Tae Gon Park, Ji Yeon Lee, Young BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research OBJECTIVE: When a hip screw needs to be changed, choosing between the conventional (C-type) and helical blade (H-type) types is difficult. In this biomechanical study, we compared these two screw types relative to the type of the initial screw used. METHODS: C- or H-type screws were inserted (leading screw) in three types of polyurethane bone models (Sawbone, Pacific Research Laboratories, Inc., Washington, USA: 130 × 180 × 40 mm) of different bone mineral densities (pounds per cubic feet [PCF] 5, 80 kg/m(3); PCF 10, 160 kg/m(3); and PCF 15, 240 kg/m(3)), and then successively or alternately inserted (following screw) after the leading screw removal. An original model (original C and H) of a leading screw without removal was created as a control. The strengths of resistance to pullout (PO) and rotational stress were measured. For each experimental condition, there were 30 experimental models. RESULTS: The original C screw was superior in PO strength, and the original H-type screw was superior in rotational strength. When the C- or H-type screw was the leading screw, using the C-type screw again as the following screw (C1-C2, H1-C2) showed the greatest resistance to PO, and using the H-type screw as the following screw (C1-H2, H1-H2) showed superior resistance to rotational strength. However, the rotational strength of the C2 screw decreased by more than 50% compared with that of the original C screw. Moreover, the PO and rotational strengths of the H2 screw decreased to less than 30% overall compared with those of the original H screw. CONCLUSION: The H-type screw should be used for second-time screw insertion procedures in cases where it is difficult to choose between PO and rotational strengths. BioMed Central 2021-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8428115/ /pubmed/34496801 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04658-y Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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 Cho, Hong Man Park, Kwang Min Jung, Tae Gon Park, Ji Yeon Lee, Young Conventional versus helical blade screw insertion following the removal of the femoral head screw: a biomechanical evaluation using trochanteric gamma 3 locking nail versus PFN antirotation |
title | Conventional versus helical blade screw insertion following the removal of the femoral head screw: a biomechanical evaluation using trochanteric gamma 3 locking nail versus PFN antirotation |
title_full | Conventional versus helical blade screw insertion following the removal of the femoral head screw: a biomechanical evaluation using trochanteric gamma 3 locking nail versus PFN antirotation |
title_fullStr | Conventional versus helical blade screw insertion following the removal of the femoral head screw: a biomechanical evaluation using trochanteric gamma 3 locking nail versus PFN antirotation |
title_full_unstemmed | Conventional versus helical blade screw insertion following the removal of the femoral head screw: a biomechanical evaluation using trochanteric gamma 3 locking nail versus PFN antirotation |
title_short | Conventional versus helical blade screw insertion following the removal of the femoral head screw: a biomechanical evaluation using trochanteric gamma 3 locking nail versus PFN antirotation |
title_sort | conventional versus helical blade screw insertion following the removal of the femoral head screw: a biomechanical evaluation using trochanteric gamma 3 locking nail versus pfn antirotation |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8428115/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34496801 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04658-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chohongman conventionalversushelicalbladescrewinsertionfollowingtheremovalofthefemoralheadscrewabiomechanicalevaluationusingtrochantericgamma3lockingnailversuspfnantirotation AT parkkwangmin conventionalversushelicalbladescrewinsertionfollowingtheremovalofthefemoralheadscrewabiomechanicalevaluationusingtrochantericgamma3lockingnailversuspfnantirotation AT jungtaegon conventionalversushelicalbladescrewinsertionfollowingtheremovalofthefemoralheadscrewabiomechanicalevaluationusingtrochantericgamma3lockingnailversuspfnantirotation AT parkjiyeon conventionalversushelicalbladescrewinsertionfollowingtheremovalofthefemoralheadscrewabiomechanicalevaluationusingtrochantericgamma3lockingnailversuspfnantirotation AT leeyoung conventionalversushelicalbladescrewinsertionfollowingtheremovalofthefemoralheadscrewabiomechanicalevaluationusingtrochantericgamma3lockingnailversuspfnantirotation |