Journal of pediatric orthopedics · 2006
Biomechanical stability of single-screw versus two-screw fixation of an unstable slipped capital femoral epiphysis model: effect of screw position in the femoral neck.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kishan Shyam, Upasani Vidyadhar, Mahar Andrew, Oka Richard, Odell Tim, Rohmiller Michael, Newton Peter, Wenger Dennis
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To biomechanically evaluate single screw and varying 2 screw fixations for an unstable slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) model using physiologically relevant loading.
STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical study.
METHODS: Twenty-four immature porcine proximal femurs were prepared to simulate a mild-to-moderate unstable SCFE. The femurs were randomized into 4 fixation groups: single screw, 2 screws horizontally placed, 2 screws vertically placed, and 2 oblique screws. Biomechanical testing determined maximum load to failure (N), load (N) at 2, 4, 6, and 8 mm of femoral head displacement, and stiffness (newtons per millimeter) for each group.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found among the 3 different 2 screw configurations. The 2 screw constructs were 66% stiffer and 66% stronger than the single screw construct. In addition, whereas there was no difference at 2 mm of femoral head displacement, each subsequent displacement (4, 6, and 8 mm) demonstrated significantly higher failure loads when 2 screws were used for stabilization.
CONCLUSIONS: Slipped capital femoral epiphysis stabilization with 2 screws leads to increased stability over single screw fixation; however, none of the 3 configurations/placement patterns of the 2 screw constructs seemed to be superior in fixation stability.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These data support the use of a 2 screw construct in acute/unstable SCFE fixation. The biomechanical benefit of 2 screws needs to be considered in the face of greater potential for inadvertent penetration into the joint with an increased number of screws.
STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanical study.
METHODS: Twenty-four immature porcine proximal femurs were prepared to simulate a mild-to-moderate unstable SCFE. The femurs were randomized into 4 fixation groups: single screw, 2 screws horizontally placed, 2 screws vertically placed, and 2 oblique screws. Biomechanical testing determined maximum load to failure (N), load (N) at 2, 4, 6, and 8 mm of femoral head displacement, and stiffness (newtons per millimeter) for each group.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found among the 3 different 2 screw configurations. The 2 screw constructs were 66% stiffer and 66% stronger than the single screw construct. In addition, whereas there was no difference at 2 mm of femoral head displacement, each subsequent displacement (4, 6, and 8 mm) demonstrated significantly higher failure loads when 2 screws were used for stabilization.
CONCLUSIONS: Slipped capital femoral epiphysis stabilization with 2 screws leads to increased stability over single screw fixation; however, none of the 3 configurations/placement patterns of the 2 screw constructs seemed to be superior in fixation stability.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These data support the use of a 2 screw construct in acute/unstable SCFE fixation. The biomechanical benefit of 2 screws needs to be considered in the face of greater potential for inadvertent penetration into the joint with an increased number of screws.