Cargando…

Biomechanical testing of different fixation techniques for intraoperative proximal femur fractures: a technical note

Intraoperative proximal femoral fractures (IPFF) represent a rare but challenging complication of total hip arthroplasties. They usually occur as a longitudinal split. This pilot trial aimed to compare the biomechanical primary stability of different fixation techniques for IPFF. Standardised longit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wendler, Toni, Fischer, Benjamin, Brand, Alexander, Weidling, Martin, Fakler, Johannes, Zajonz, Dirk, Osterhoff, Georg
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9683064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36403162
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23335432.2022.2142159
_version_ 1784834990831304704
author Wendler, Toni
Fischer, Benjamin
Brand, Alexander
Weidling, Martin
Fakler, Johannes
Zajonz, Dirk
Osterhoff, Georg
author_facet Wendler, Toni
Fischer, Benjamin
Brand, Alexander
Weidling, Martin
Fakler, Johannes
Zajonz, Dirk
Osterhoff, Georg
author_sort Wendler, Toni
collection PubMed
description Intraoperative proximal femoral fractures (IPFF) represent a rare but challenging complication of total hip arthroplasties. They usually occur as a longitudinal split. This pilot trial aimed to compare the biomechanical primary stability of different fixation techniques for IPFF. Standardised longitudinal medial split fractures of the proximal femur (type II, Modified Mallory Classification) were created in artificial osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic composite femora after implantation of a cementless femoral stem. Five different fixation techniques were compared: cerclage band, cerclage wiring with one or two wires, and lag screw fixation with one or two lag screws. A quasi-static loading protocol was applied and failure loads were evaluated. The observed median failure loads were 4192N (3982N – 5189N) for one cerclage band, 4450N (3577N – 4927N) for one cerclage wire, 5016N (4175N – 5685N) for two cerclage wires, 6085N (5000N – 8907N) for one lag screw, and 4774N (4509N – 8502N) for two lag screws. Due to the wide range of failure loads within the experimental groups, there were no observable differences between the groups. All fixation techniques provided sufficient primary stability in osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic composite bones. Further cadaveric studies with larger sample sizes may be needed to confirm the results presented here.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9683064
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96830642022-11-24 Biomechanical testing of different fixation techniques for intraoperative proximal femur fractures: a technical note Wendler, Toni Fischer, Benjamin Brand, Alexander Weidling, Martin Fakler, Johannes Zajonz, Dirk Osterhoff, Georg Int Biomech Research Article Intraoperative proximal femoral fractures (IPFF) represent a rare but challenging complication of total hip arthroplasties. They usually occur as a longitudinal split. This pilot trial aimed to compare the biomechanical primary stability of different fixation techniques for IPFF. Standardised longitudinal medial split fractures of the proximal femur (type II, Modified Mallory Classification) were created in artificial osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic composite femora after implantation of a cementless femoral stem. Five different fixation techniques were compared: cerclage band, cerclage wiring with one or two wires, and lag screw fixation with one or two lag screws. A quasi-static loading protocol was applied and failure loads were evaluated. The observed median failure loads were 4192N (3982N – 5189N) for one cerclage band, 4450N (3577N – 4927N) for one cerclage wire, 5016N (4175N – 5685N) for two cerclage wires, 6085N (5000N – 8907N) for one lag screw, and 4774N (4509N – 8502N) for two lag screws. Due to the wide range of failure loads within the experimental groups, there were no observable differences between the groups. All fixation techniques provided sufficient primary stability in osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic composite bones. Further cadaveric studies with larger sample sizes may be needed to confirm the results presented here. Taylor & Francis 2022-11-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9683064/ /pubmed/36403162 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23335432.2022.2142159 Text en © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Wendler, Toni
Fischer, Benjamin
Brand, Alexander
Weidling, Martin
Fakler, Johannes
Zajonz, Dirk
Osterhoff, Georg
Biomechanical testing of different fixation techniques for intraoperative proximal femur fractures: a technical note
title Biomechanical testing of different fixation techniques for intraoperative proximal femur fractures: a technical note
title_full Biomechanical testing of different fixation techniques for intraoperative proximal femur fractures: a technical note
title_fullStr Biomechanical testing of different fixation techniques for intraoperative proximal femur fractures: a technical note
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanical testing of different fixation techniques for intraoperative proximal femur fractures: a technical note
title_short Biomechanical testing of different fixation techniques for intraoperative proximal femur fractures: a technical note
title_sort biomechanical testing of different fixation techniques for intraoperative proximal femur fractures: a technical note
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9683064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36403162
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23335432.2022.2142159
work_keys_str_mv AT wendlertoni biomechanicaltestingofdifferentfixationtechniquesforintraoperativeproximalfemurfracturesatechnicalnote
AT fischerbenjamin biomechanicaltestingofdifferentfixationtechniquesforintraoperativeproximalfemurfracturesatechnicalnote
AT brandalexander biomechanicaltestingofdifferentfixationtechniquesforintraoperativeproximalfemurfracturesatechnicalnote
AT weidlingmartin biomechanicaltestingofdifferentfixationtechniquesforintraoperativeproximalfemurfracturesatechnicalnote
AT faklerjohannes biomechanicaltestingofdifferentfixationtechniquesforintraoperativeproximalfemurfracturesatechnicalnote
AT zajonzdirk biomechanicaltestingofdifferentfixationtechniquesforintraoperativeproximalfemurfracturesatechnicalnote
AT osterhoffgeorg biomechanicaltestingofdifferentfixationtechniquesforintraoperativeproximalfemurfracturesatechnicalnote