Comparison of fixation techniques in Vancouver type AG periprosthetic femoral fracture: a biomechanical study

The only significant difference was between the locking plate and cable groups (p<0.05).Conclusion: In Vancouver type AG fractures stable fixation may be achieved with grip plate fixation and locking plates, with the former ensuring more stable osteosynthesis.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯

Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: The purpose of this study was to biomechanically compare cable, trochanteric grip plate, and locking plate techniques in Vancouver type AG fracture model in an in vitro test environment.Methods: Fifteen pieces of fourth-generation synthetic femora were separated into 3 groups of 5 models each.

📊

Temel Bulgular & Veri:Group 1 was fixated with only cable, Group 2 with trochanteric grip plate, and Group 3 with locking plate.

💡

Sonuç & Katkı:The only significant difference was between the locking plate and cable groups (p<0.05).Conclusion: In Vancouver type AG fractures stable fixation may be achieved with grip plate fixation and locking plates, with the former ensuring more stable osteosynthesis.

🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon

📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem

⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to biomechanically compare cable, trochanteric grip plate, and locking plate techniques in Vancouver type AG fracture model in an in vitro test environment.Methods: Fifteen pieces of fourth-generation synthetic femora were separated into 3 groups of 5 models each. A greater trochanteric fracture model was created after femoral stem implantation. Group 1 was fixated with only cable, Group 2 with trochanteric grip plate, and Group 3 with locking plate. Horizontal stiffness, axial stiffness, and failure loads were compared between the groups.Results: In horizontal compression tests, Group 3 had the highest values, but the only statistically significant difference was between the locking plate group and cable group. Axial distraction test results showed that mean stiffness of Group 1 was 94.6±9.44 N/mm, that of Group 2 was 174.8±28.64 N/mm, and that of Group 3 was 185.6±71.64 N/mm. While locking plate versus cable fixation and grip plate fixation versus cable fixation showed statistically significant differences (p<0.05), comparison of locking plate versus grip plate fixation showed no statistically significant difference (p>0.05). In axial failure load test, Group 3 had the highest results. The only significant difference was between the locking plate and cable groups (p<0.05).Conclusion: In Vancouver type AG fractures stable fixation may be achieved with grip plate fixation and locking plates, with the former ensuring more stable osteosynthesis.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

SARIYILMAZ, K., KORKMAZ, M., OZKUNT, O., GEMALMAZ, H. C., SUNGUR, M., BAYDOĞAN, M., KAYA, İ., DİKİCİ, F. (2016). Comparison of fixation techniques in Vancouver type AG periprosthetic femoral fracture: a biomechanical study. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 3, 373–378. https://ajindex.com/articles/204363

Kaynakça (14)

Hendel D, Yasin M, Garti A, Weisbort M, Beloosesky Y. Fracture of the greater trochanter during hip replacement: a retrospective analysis of 21/372 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 2002;73:295-7. Pritchett JW. Fracture of the greater trochanter after hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001;390:221-6.
Koyama K, Higuchi F, Kubo M, Okawa T, Inoue A. Re- attachment of the greater trochanter using the Dall-Miles cable grip system in revision hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci 2001;6:22-7.
Barrack RL, Butler RA. Current status of trochanteric re- attachment in complex total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;441:237-42.
Bergmann G, Graichen F, Rohlmann A. Is staircase walk- ing a risk for the fixation of hip implants? J Biomech 1995;28:535-53.
Dall DM, Miles AW. Re-attachment of the greater tro- chanter. The use of the trochanter cable-grip system. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1983;65:55-9.
Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M, Graichen F, Rohlmann A, Strauss J, et al. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech 2001;34:859- 71. Harris WH, Crothers OD. Reattachment of the greater trochanter in total hip-replacement arthroplasty. A new technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978;60:211-3.
Jensen NF, Harris WH. A system for trochanteric oste- otomy and reattachment for total hip arthroplasty with a ninety-nine percent union rate. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986;208:174-81.
Nercessian OA, Newton PM, Joshi RP, Sheikh B, Eft- ekhar NS. Trochanteric osteotomy and wire fixation: a comparison of 2 techniques. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996;333:208-16.
Hamadouche M, Zniber B, Dumaine V, Kerboull M, Cour- pied JP. Reattachment of the ununited greater trochanter following total hip arthroplasty. The use of a trochanteric claw plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85-A:1330-7.
Hodgkinson JP, Shelley P, Wroblewski BM. Re-attach- ment of the un-united trochanter in Charnley low friction arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1989;71:523-5.
Hersh CK, Williams RP, Trick LW, Lanctot D, Atha- nasiou K. Comparison of the mechanical performance of trochanteric fixation devices. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996;329:317-25.
Ritter MA, Eizember LE, Keating EM, Faris PM. Tro- chanteric fixation by cable grip in hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991;73:580-1.
Silverton CD, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG, Kull L, Conley A, Galante JO. Complications of a cable grip system. J Arthro- plasty 1996;11:400-4.
McCarthy JC, Bono JV, Turner RH, Kremchek T, Lee J. The outcome of trochanteric reattachment in