Journals / Akdeniz Tıp Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 2

Modular Axial Fixator is a Reliable Method for Stable Proximal Femoral Fracture A Finite Element Analysis and Mechanical Study

Modüler Aksiyel Fiksatör Stabil Femur Üst Uç Kırıklarının Tedavisinde Güvenilir Bir Seçenektir* Bir Sonlu Eleman Modelleme ve Mekanik Laboratuvar Çalışması

Pages
63–73
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

In addition, shortening of functional screw length and cross-bar length, presence of more than three screws in both fragments, and placement of the distal screws near the fracture line decreases the stress besides increasing stability.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: In the present study, Modular Axial Fixator, which haspromising clinical outcomes, was analysed by finite element analysis to clarify and standardize its biomechanical properties.Material and Methods: During the finite element analysis carried on, 14 different Modular Axial Fixators and Orthofix were first evaluated, considering the factors influencing external fixator stability.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Secondly, in the laboratory study, axial loading tests were conducted on the 4 most stable Modular Axial Fixators and Orthofix.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, shortening of functional screw length and cross-bar length, presence of more than three screws in both fragments, and placement of the distal screws near the fracture line decreases the stress besides increasing stability.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: In the present study, Modular Axial Fixator, which haspromising clinical outcomes, was analysed by finite element analysis to clarify and standardize its biomechanical properties.Material and Methods: During the finite element analysis carried on, 14 different Modular Axial Fixators and Orthofix were first evaluated, considering the factors influencing external fixator stability. Secondly, in the laboratory study, axial loading tests were conducted on the 4 most stable Modular Axial Fixators and Orthofix. Load carrying capacities, stabilities, amount of load affecting the fracture line and rigidity of the systems were evaluated.results: Evaluation of the obtained data showed that external fixation can be a standard method of treatment in addition to being a biomechanical alternative method in proximal femoral fractures. Besides, it can become a reliable method in unstable fracture management by modifying the presently used systems.conclusion: Compared with the stresses in normal bones, application of external fixator to the proximal femur decreases the stresses through the femur by transferring the majority of the load to the distal part, without deteriorating the physiological load distribution. In addition, shortening of functional screw length and cross-bar length, presence of more than three screws in both fragments, and placement of the distal screws near the fracture line decreases the stress besides increasing stability.

Özet

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı femur üst uç kırığı olan yaşlı hastaların genel durumlarının büyük cerrahiye izin vermediği durumlarda kullanılan Modüler Aksiyel Fiksatör'ün biyomekanik özelliklerinin belirlenmesi ve çıkan sonuçlara göre yapılacak değişiklikler ile stabilizasyonunun artırılması ve standardizasyonunun sağlanmasıdır.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu amaçla birinci aşaması sonlu eleman analizi, ikinci aşaması laboratuvar çalışması olmak üzere iki aşamalı çalışma planlandı. Sonlu eleman analizinde, eksternal fiksatörlerde stabiliteyi etkileyen faktörler göz önüne alınarak Modüler Aksiyel Fiksatör'ün 14 değişik konfigürasyonu ve Orthofix üzerinde çalışıldı. Laboratuvar ortamında ise sanal ortamda elde edilen verilere göre Modüler Aksiyel Fiksatör'ün 4 farklı konfigürasyonu ve Orthofix üzerinde aksiyel yükleme yapılarak modellerin stabiliteleri, yük taşıma kapasiteleri, kırık hattına etkiyen yük miktarları ve rijiditeleri değerlendirildi.Bulgular: Elde edilen verilerin değerlendirilmesi; femur üst uç kırıklarında kullanılan eksternal fiksasyonun, biyomekanik açıdan alternatif bir tedavi şeklinden çok standart bir tedavi şekli olarak kullanılabileceğini ve mevcut sistemler üzerinde yapılacak modifikasyonlar ile anstabil kırıklarda da güvenilir bir yöntem olabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır.Sonuç: Normal kemikteki streslerle karşılaştırıldığında femur üst ucuna eksternal fiksatör uygulanması, fizyolojik yük dağılımını bozmaksızın femur boyunca oluşan stresleri, yükün önemli bir bölümünü distale aktararak azaltmaktadır. Yine fonksiyonel çivi boyunun kısaltılması, bar uzunluğunun azaltılması, her fragmanda daha fazla çivi bulundurulması ve distal çivilerin kırık hattına yakın yerleştirilmesi hem stresleri azaltmakta hem de stabiliteyi artırmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZDEMİR, H., ÖNDER, Y., DABAK, T. K. (2022). Modular Axial Fixator is a Reliable Method for Stable Proximal Femoral Fracture A Finite Element Analysis and Mechanical Study. Akdeniz Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 2, 63–73. https://ajindex.com/articles/434515

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Ganz R, Thomas RJ, Hammerle CP. Trochanteric fractures of the femur. Treatment and results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1979; 138:30-40. Kaufer H. Mechanics of the treatment of hip injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1980; 146:53-61.
  2. Gotfried Y, Frish E, Mendes DG, Roffman M. İntertrochanteric fractures in high risk geriatric patients treated by external fixation. Orthopedics 1985; 6:769-74.
  3. Dhal A, Singh S. Biological fixation of subtrochanteric fractures by external fixation. İnjury 1996; 27: 723-31.
  4. Christodoulou N, Sdrenias CV. External fixation of select intertrochanteric fractures with single hip screw. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000; 381:204-11.
  5. Moroni A, Faldini C, Pegreffi F, Hoang-Kim A, Vannini F, Giannini S. Dynamic hip screw compared with external fixation for treatment of osteoporotic pertrochanteric fractures. J Bone Joint Surg 2005; 87(4):753-59.
  6. Özdemir H, Ürgüden M, Dabak K, Söyüncü Y. Treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures with the use of a modular axial fixator device. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2002; 36:375-83.
  7. Özdemir H, Dabak K, Ürgüden M, Gür S. A different treatment modality for trochanteric fractures of the femur in surgical high-risk patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2003; 123:538-43.
  8. Huiskes R, Chao EYS. A survey of finite element analysis in orthopaedic biomechanics: The first decade. J Biomech 1983; 16:385-409.
  9. Rybicki EF, Simonen FA, Weis EB. On the mathematical analysis of stress in the human femur. J Biomechanics 1972; 5:203-15.
  10. Cegonino J, Garcia Aznar JM, Doblare M, Palanca D, Seral B, Seral F. A comparative analysis of different treatments for distal femur fractures using the finite element method. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2004: 7(5):245-56.
  11. Verdonschot N, Huiskes R. Can polished stems reduce mechanical failures of the cement-bone interface in man? Trans Eur Orthop Res Soc 1995; 5:42-51.
  12. Verdonschot N, Huiskes R. Acrylic cement creeps but does not allow much subsidence of femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg 1997; 79:665-74.
  13. Boyd HB, Griffin LL. Classification and treatment of trochanteric fractures. Arch Surg 1949; 58(6):853-66. Behrens F. A primer of fixator devices and configurations. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; 241: 5-14. Sisk TD. General principles and techniques of external skeletal fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1983; 180:96- 100. ASTM F 1541-02. Standard specification and test methods for external skeletal fixation devices. Annual book of ASTM standards 2002: 1-31.
  14. Sevil-Kilimci F, Kara ME. Kemiklerin mekanik