SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2011 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 4

The biomechanical assessment of fixation methods in periprosthetic femur fractures

Periprostetik femur kırıklarına uygulanan tespit yöntemlerinin biyomekanik değerlendirilmesi

Mehmet GÜLŞEN
Vasfi KARATOSUN
BAHADIR UYULGAN
Pages
266–269
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

There is no difference among the fixation methods used in the study and none of them provide a stability equivalent to that of an intact femur with prosthesis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of our study was to compare the biomechanical properties of different fixa tion methods used in periprosthetic femur fractures.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: We created sawbone models with Mallory Type 2 periprosthetic femur fractures.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There is no difference among the fixation methods used in the study and none of them provide a stability equivalent to that of an intact femur with prosthesis.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kırık tespiti · internal · Artroplasti

Abstract

Objective: The aim of our study was to compare the biomechanical properties of different fixa tion methods used in periprosthetic femur fractures. Methods: We created sawbone models with Mallory Type 2 periprosthetic femur fractures. The periprosthetic fractures were fixed with cables, cables and strut graft, or cables and plates. The biomechanical properties of these three different fixation methods were compared with the intact femur, the intact femur with prosthesis and the femur with periprosthetic fracture without fixa tion. Results: The periprosthetic fracture without fixation had a significantly lower yield point value than the periprosthetic fractures with fixation (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between the three different fixation methods of the periprosthetic fractures. The intact femur with a prosthesis showed statistically higher values than all three fixation methods of perioprosthetic fractures. Conclusion: Mallory Type 2 periprosthetic fractures should be fixed. There is no difference among the fixation methods used in the study and none of them provide a stability equivalent to that of an intact femur with prosthesis.

Özet

Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı periprostetik femur kırıklarında kullanılan farklı tespit yöntemlerinin biyomekanik özelliklerini karşılaştırmaktı. Çalışma planı: Mallory Tip 2 periprostetik femur kırıklarıyla sawbone modelleri oluşturduk. Periprostetik kırıklar kablo, kablo ve strut greft, ya da kablo ve plaklarla ile tespit edildi. Bu üç farklı tespit yönteminin biyomekanik özellikleri sağlam femur, protez uygulanmış sağlam femur, tespit yapılmamış kırıklı femur ile karşılaştırılarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Karşılaştırmada tespit yapılmamış periprostetik kırığın akma noktası değerinin tespit yapılan kırıklara göre anlamlı şekilde daha düşük olduğu görüldü (p<0.05). Periprostetik kırıkların bu üç farklı tespit yöntemi arasında ise anlamlı bir fark bulunmadı. Protez uygulanan sağlam femurun periprostetik kırıklara uygulanan üç tespit yöntemi arasında istatistiksel olarak en yüksek değeri veren yöntem olduğu saptandı. Çıkarımlar: Mallory Tip 2 periprostetik kırıklar tespit edilmelidir. Çalışmada yararlanılan üç tespit yöntemi arasında fark yoktur ve hiçbiri protez uygulanmış sağlam femurun stabilitesine yakın bir sonuç vermemiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜLŞEN, M., KARATOSUN, V., UYULGAN, B. (2011). The biomechanical assessment of fixation methods in periprosthetic femur fractures. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 4, 266–269. https://ajindex.com/articles/354088

References (10)

  1. Campbell P, McWilliams TG. Periprosthetic femoral frac tures. Current Orthopaedics; 2002;16:126-32
  2. Fink B, Fuerst M, Singer J. Periprosthetic fractures of the femur associated with hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2005;125:433-42. 3. de Ridder VA, de Lange S, Koomen AR, Heatley FW. Partridge osteosynthesis: a prospective clinical study on the use of nylon cerclage bands and plates in the treatment of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2001;15:61-5
  3. Zenni EJ Jr, Pomeroy DL, Claude JR. Ogden plate and other fixations for fractures complicating femoral endo prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988;(231):83-90
  4. Mallory TH, Kraus TJ, Vaughn BK. Intraoperative femoral fractures associated with cementless total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 1989;12:231-9
  5. Berry DJ. Epidemiology: hip and knee. Orthop Clin North Am 1999;30:183-90
  6. Cristofolini L, Viceconti M, Capello A, Toni A. Mechanical validation of whole bone composite femur models. J Biomech 1996;29:525-35
  7. Schwartz JT, Mayer JG, Engh CA. Femoral fracture dur ing non-cemented total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989;71:1135-42
  8. Dennis MG, Simon JA, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ, Di Cesare PE. Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures occurring at the tip of the stem: a biomechanical study of 5 techniques. J Arthroplasty 2000;15:523-8
  9. Maozen M, Jones AC, Jin Z, Wilcox RK, Tsiridis E. Periprosthetic fracture fixation of femur following total hip arthroplasty: A review of biomechanical testing. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2010:30
  10. Greidanus NV, Mitchell PA, Masri BA, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP. Principles of management and results of treat ing the fractured femur during and after total hip arthro plasty. Instr Course Lect 2003;52:309-22.