Orthopaedic surgery · 2014
Biomechanical analysis of four types of internal fixation in subtrochanteric fracture models.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка 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.
Wang Jie, Ma Xin-long, Ma Jian-xiong, Xing Dan, Yang Yang, Zhu Shao-wen, Ma Bao-yi, Chen Yang, Feng Rui, Jia Hao-bo, Yu Jing-tao
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the biomechanical properties of four types of internal fixation (proximal femoral nail [PFN], dynamic hip screw [DHS], dynamic condylar screw [DCS], and proximal femoral locking plate [PFLP]) for different types of subtrochanteric fractures.
METHODS: Thirty-two antiseptic femurs were randomly divided into four groups. After internal fixation had been implanted, different types of subtrochanteric fracture models were produced and each tested under vertical, torsional and vertical damage loads.
RESULTS: The stiffness ratio of PFN in each fracture model and failure load were the highest in the four groups; however, the torsional stiffness ratio was the lowest. Tension strain ratios of DHS and DCS on the lateral side became compression strain ratios with restoration of the medial fragment. The stiffness ratio of DHS was lower than PFLP in each fracture model, torsional stiffness ratio was the highest in fracture models II to V and the failure load was lower only than PFN. The stiffness ratio and failure load of DCS were both the lowest, torsional stiffness ratio was similar to PFLP's in fracture models II to V. The stiffness ratio of PFLP was only lower than PFN's in each fracture model, but the failure load was lower than DHS's.
CONCLUSION: Four types of internal fixation achieve better stabilities for type I subtrochanteric fractures. PFN and PFLP produce reliable stability in type IIIA subtrochanteric fractures. If the medial buttress is restored, DCS can be considered. For type IV subtrochanteric fractures, only PFN provides stable fixation. PFLP is suitable for comminuted fractures with large fragments.
METHODS: Thirty-two antiseptic femurs were randomly divided into four groups. After internal fixation had been implanted, different types of subtrochanteric fracture models were produced and each tested under vertical, torsional and vertical damage loads.
RESULTS: The stiffness ratio of PFN in each fracture model and failure load were the highest in the four groups; however, the torsional stiffness ratio was the lowest. Tension strain ratios of DHS and DCS on the lateral side became compression strain ratios with restoration of the medial fragment. The stiffness ratio of DHS was lower than PFLP in each fracture model, torsional stiffness ratio was the highest in fracture models II to V and the failure load was lower only than PFN. The stiffness ratio and failure load of DCS were both the lowest, torsional stiffness ratio was similar to PFLP's in fracture models II to V. The stiffness ratio of PFLP was only lower than PFN's in each fracture model, but the failure load was lower than DHS's.
CONCLUSION: Four types of internal fixation achieve better stabilities for type I subtrochanteric fractures. PFN and PFLP produce reliable stability in type IIIA subtrochanteric fractures. If the medial buttress is restored, DCS can be considered. For type IV subtrochanteric fractures, only PFN provides stable fixation. PFLP is suitable for comminuted fractures with large fragments.