What is the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur? A biomechanical analysis.

PURPOSE: Due to increasing life expectancy we see a rising number of joint replacements. Along with the proximal prosthesis in the femur, more and more people have a second implant on the distal ipsilateral side. This might be a retrograde nail or a locking plate to treat distal femur fractures or a constrained knee prosthesis in the case of severe arthrosis. All these constructs can lead to fractures between the implants. The goal of this study was to evaluate the risk of stress risers for interprosthetic fractures of the femur. METHODS: Thirty human cadaveric femurs were divided into five groups: (1) femurs with a prosthesis on the proximal side only, (2) hip prosthesis on the proximal end and a distal femur nail, (3) femurs with both a hip prosthesis and a constrained knee prosthesis, (4) femurs with a hip prosthesis on the proximal side and a 4.5-mm distal femur locking plate; the locking plate was 230 mm in length, with ten holes in the shaft, and (5) femurs with a proximal hip prosthesis and a 4.5-mm distal femur locking plate; the locking plate was 342 mm in length, with 16 holes in the shaft. RESULTS: Femurs with a hip prosthesis and knee prosthesis showed significantly higher required fracture force compared to femurs with a hip prosthesis and a distal retrograde nail. Femurs with a distal locking plate of either length showed a higher required fracture force than those with the retrograde nail. CONCLUSIONS: The highest risk for a fracture in the femur with an existing hip prosthesis comes with a retrograde nail. A distal locking plate for the treatment of supracondylar fractures leads to a higher required fracture force. The implantation of a constrained knee prosthesis that is not loosened on the ipsilateral side does not increase the risk for a fracture.

Biomechanical evaluation for mechanisms of periprosthetic femoral fractures.

BACKGROUND: There are a number of biomechanical tests for various treatment options of periprosthetic femoral fractures, but different loading modalities prelude their direct comparison. This study was designed to develop an experimental model of osteoporotic bone fractures near the femoral stem that is based on a simple testing protocol to increase the reproducibility. In addition, we wanted to clarify whether a femoral prosthetic stem reduces the femoral fracture strength. METHODS: Twenty human cadaveric femurs were harvested, and five groups were randomized on the basis of the bone mineral density using a pQCT device. The specimens of three groups were provided with a cemented Exeter V40 stem and loaded to failure with torsion (I), anterior (II), and lateral load (III). The femurs of groups IV and V remained uninstrumented and were tested in a four-point bending assay similar to groups II and III. All biomechanical testings were realized with a servohydraulic testing machine (MTS). RESULTS: There was no significant difference regarding bone mineral density of all groups. Torsional testing generated proximal intertrochanteric fractures and anterior loading resulted exclusively in supracondylar fractures. Introducing the force from the lateral side, all fracture lines occurred close to the tip of the stem, similar to a Vancouver-B fracture. Assuming that lateral load application is a main responsible mechanism of periprosthetic femoral fracture near the tip of the stem, the fracture strength of instrumented femurs was significantly reduced (group III: 4,692 N vs. group V: 6,931 N; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Prosthetic stems reduce femoral fracture strength significantly. In an osteoporotic bone model, a four-point bending test with lateral load application seems to be a suitable approach.

Internal fixation of femoral neck fractures with posterior comminution: a biomechanical comparison of DHS® and Intertan nail®.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Internal fixation is a therapeutic mainstay for treatment of undisplaced femoral neck fractures and fractures without posterior comminution. The best treatment for unstable and comminuted fractures, however, remains controversial, especially in older patients. The present study was designed to assess the utility of the Intertan Nail® (IT) for stabilization of comminuted Pauwels type III fractures compared to dynamic hips screw (DHS). METHODS: Randomized on the basis of bone mineral density, 32 human femurs were assigned to four groups. Pauwels type III fractures were osteomized with a custom-made saw guide. In 16 specimens the posteromedial support was removed and all femurs were instrumented with an IT or a DHS. All constructs were tested with nondestructive axial loading to 700N, cyclical compression to 1,400N (10,000 cycles), and loading to failure. Outcome measures included number of survived cycles, mechanical stiffness, head displacement and load to failure. RESULTS: Postoperative mechanical stiffness and stiffness after cyclical loading were significantly reduced in all constructs regardless of the presence of a comminution defect (p = 0.02). Specimens stabilized with the IT had a lower construct displacement (IT, 8.5 ± 0.5 mm vs. DHS, 14.5 ± 2.2 mm; p = 0.007) and sustained higher failure loads (IT, 4929 ± 419 N vs. DHS, 3505 ± 453 N; p = 0.036) than the DHS constructs. INTERPRETATION: In comminuted Pauwels type III fractures, the fixation with the IT provided sufficient postoperative mechanical strength, comparable rate of femoral head displacement, and a similar tolerance of physiological loads compared to fractures without comminution. The absence of the posteromedial support in comminuted fractures tended to reduce the failure load regardless of the fixation method.

Biomechanical evaluation of peri- and interprosthetic fractures of the femur.

BACKGROUND: Because of an increasing life expectancy of patients and the rising number of joint replacements, peri- and interprosthetic femoral fractures are a common occurrence in most trauma centers. This study was designed to answer two primary questions. First, whether the fracture risk increases with two intramedullary implants in one femur; and second, whether a compression plate osteosynthesis is sufficient for stabilizing an interprosthetic fracture. METHODS: Twenty-four human cadaveric femurs were harvested and four groups were matched based on the basis of bone density using a peripher quantitative computer tomography (pQCT). All groups-(I) hip prosthesis with a cemented femoral stem; (II) hip prosthesis and retrograde femoral nail; (III) hip prosthesis, retrograde femoral nail, and lateral compression plate; (IV) all three implants with an additional simulated interprosthetic fracture-were biomechanically tested in a four-point bending in lateral-medial direction. RESULTS: The second group with two intramedullary implants exhibited 20% lower fracture strength in comparison with group 1 with proximal femoral stem only. The stabilization of an interprosthetic fracture with a lateral compression plate (group IV) resulted in a fracture strength similar to femur with prosthesis only. CONCLUSION: Two intramedullary implants reduce the fracture strength significantly. If an interprosthetic fracture occurs, sufficient stability can be achieved by a lateral compression plate. Because two intramedullary implants in the femur may decrease the fracture strength, the treatment of supracondylar femoral fractures with a retrograde nail in cases with preexisting ipsilateral hip prosthesis should be reconsidered.