A model to evaluate Pauwels type III femoral neck fractures

Author(s):  
Kevin M Magone ◽  
Jonas K Owen ◽  
Bernard P Kemker ◽  
Oliver Bloom ◽  
Sidney Martin ◽  
...  

While many femoral neck fractures can be reliably treated with surgical intervention, Pauwels III femoral neck fractures in the young adult population continue to be a challenging injury, and there is no consensus on optimal treatment. As such, there are past and ongoing biomechanical studies to evaluate the fixation provided by different constructs for this inherently unstable fracture. While many investigations rely on cadavers to evaluate the biomechanical performance of a construct, significant inter-subject variability can confound the analysis. Biomechanical femur analogs are being used more frequently due to more consistent mechanical properties; however, they have not been stringently evaluated for morphology or suitability for instrumentation. This study sought to determine the variability among composite femoral analogs as well as consistently create a Pauwels III injury and instrument the analogs without the need for fluoroscopic guidance. In total, 24 fourth-generation composite femoral analogs were evaluated for femoral height, neck–shaft angle, anteversion, and cortical thickness. A method was developed to simulate a Pauwels III fracture and to prepare three different constructs: an inverted triangle of cannulated screws, a sliding hip screw, and a hybrid inverted triangle with cannulated screws and a sliding hip screw. Radiographs were utilized to evaluate the variation in implant position. All but one of the morphological parameters varied by <1%. The tip-to-apex distance for all sliding hip screw hardware was 18.8 ± 3.3 mm, and all relevant cannulated screw distances were within 5 mm of the adjacent cortex. All screws were parallel, on average, within 1.5° on anterior–posterior and lateral films. Fourth-generation composite femora were found to be morphologically consistent, and it is possible to consistently instrument the analogs without the use of fluoroscopy. This analog and hardware implantation model could serve as a screening model for new fracture repair constructs without the need for cadaveric tissues or radiologic technology.

Author(s):  
Shabnam Samsami ◽  
Peter Augat ◽  
Gholamreza Rouhi

Femoral neck fractures represent a relatively uncommon injury in the non-elderly population often resulting from high-energy trauma. Clinical outcome in these patients can be improved by optimizing surgical procedures and selecting appropriate fixation methods. The aim of this study was to develop a numerical fracture model to investigate the influence of critical mechanical factors on the stability of fixation methods for femoral neck fractures. The mechanical stability of fracture fixation was assessed through employing finite element models and simulating progressive consolidation of the fracture for a vertical femoral neck fracture (i.e. Pauwels type III in which the angle between the fracture line and the horizontal plane is greater than 70°). Mechanical performance was compared among three different fixation methods (cannulated screws, dynamic hip screw with de-rotational screw, and proximal femoral locking plate). Axial femoral head displacement varied from 2.3 mm for cannulated screws to 1.12 mm for proximal femoral locking plate, although dynamic hip screw with de-rotational screw indicated a value of 0.94 mm. Considering a consolidated fracture and full weight-bearing load case, average displacements of fracture fragments were obtained of about 1.5, 3 and 70 µm for dynamic hip screw with de-rotational screw, proximal femoral locking plate and cannulated screws methods, respectively. In terms of interfragmentary movements at the fracture site, outcomes of this study demonstrated that, in agreement with our previous experimental research, the dynamic hip screw with de-rotational screw implant is a more effective choice than cannulated screws and proximal femoral locking plate techniques for vertical femoral neck fractures in young patients. Thus, one may conclude that the use of dynamic hip screw with de-rotational screw, particularly during the early stages of bone healing, could provide suitable mechanical environments that facilitate direct bone formation and shorter healing times.


Injury ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. S30
Author(s):  
M. Gem ◽  
E. Özkul ◽  
B.Y. Ucar ◽  
C. Alemdar ◽  
A. Demirtas ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yutong Xia ◽  
Wendong Zhang ◽  
Zhen Zhang ◽  
Jingcheng Wang ◽  
Lianqi Yan

Abstract Purpose Femoral neck fractures are still unsolved problems nowadays; sliding hip screw (SHS) and cannulated compression screw (CCS) are the most commonly used devices. We evaluated the clinical outcomes and complications in the treatment of femoral neck fractures between SHS and CCS in this meta-analysis to find which is better. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library up to 24 August 2020 and retrieved any studies comparing sliding hip screw and cannulated compression screw in treatment of femoral neck fractures; the main outcomes and complications were extracted from the studies which were included. Results Nine studies involving 1662 patients (828 patients in the SHS group and 834 patients in the CCS group) were included in this study. SHS had higher rate of avascular necrosis (RR = 1.30, 95% CI 1.08–1.56, p = 0.005), and CCS had higher rate of implant removal (RR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.43–0.93, p = 0.02). No significant statistical difference in non-union, implant failure, infection, replacement, mortality, orthopedic complications, non-orthopedic complications, and total revision between SHS and CCS group. Conclusion Both devices have their pros and cons; SHS had a higher rate of avascular necrosis, and CCS had a higher rate of implant removal rate. No significant statistical difference in non-union, implant failure, infection, replacement, mortality, orthopedic complications, non-orthopedic complications, and total revision between SHS and CCS group.


2011 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 625-634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Rupprecht ◽  
Lars Grossterlinden ◽  
Andreas H. Ruecker ◽  
Alexander Novo de Oliveira ◽  
Kay Sellenschloh ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takafumi Hiranaka ◽  
Toshikazu Tanaka ◽  
Kenjiro Okumura ◽  
Takaaki Fujishiro ◽  
Rika Shigemoto ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document