Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Biomechanical evaluation of a central collinear entry reconstruction nail for femoral neck fracture prophylaxis.
Shah, Sapan; Huang, Dave T; Marecek, Geoffrey; Huang, Kevin; Metzger, Melodie F.
Afiliação
  • Shah S; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  • Huang DT; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  • Marecek G; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  • Huang K; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  • Metzger MF; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: melodie.metzger@cshs.org.
Injury ; 55(8): 111640, 2024 Aug.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38823097
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Reconstruction nails are commonly used to treat proximal femur fractures, with cephalic screw placement for femoral neck "prophylaxis" becoming standard practice. These implants are traditionally introduced through piriformis fossa (PF) or greater trochanter (GT) entry portals. A third "central collinear" (CC) portal has been proposed that allows entry along the femoral anatomic axis and central placement of cephalic screws. The present study aimed to quantify and compare the CC portal femoral neck strength with the two traditional (PF and GT) entry portals. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

Eighteen cadaveric femur specimens (nine matched pairs) were divided into three groups using a balanced incomplete block design to control for variations in age and sex (1) GT, (2) CC, and (3) PF entry points. Specimens and implants were cut to a standard length and instrumented with straight or valgus bend nails of appropriate laterality and two cephalic screws. Specimens were mounted on a custom jig replicating load distribution along the mechanical axis. A 100 N compressive preload was applied to the femoral head, followed by loading to failure at a rate of 10 mm/s until fracture, indicated by 30 % drop in axial force.

RESULTS:

THE THREE ENTRY POINTS DID NOT DIFFER IN LOAD-TO-FAILURE GT (6378.7 ± 1494.9 N), P (6912.4 ± 4924.1 N) and CC (7044.2 ± 2911.4 N) (P = 0.948) or maximum displacement, stiffness, and toughness. Most PF specimens failed at the basicervical neck, whereas most GT specimens failed at the subcapital neck; these differences were not significant. CC specimens failed evenly split between subcapital and basicervical.

CONCLUSION:

There were no significant difference in femoral neck load-to-failure after placement of a reconstruction nail through a CC entry portal when compared to both GT and PF entry. Clinically, this suggests the CC entry portal is a viable option when clinical considerations warrant its use.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Pinos Ortopédicos / Parafusos Ósseos / Cadáver / Fraturas do Colo Femoral / Fixação Intramedular de Fraturas Limite: Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Injury Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Pinos Ortopédicos / Parafusos Ósseos / Cadáver / Fraturas do Colo Femoral / Fixação Intramedular de Fraturas Limite: Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Injury Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos