Journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2012
A biomechanical comparison of a locking plate, a nail, and a 95° angled blade plate for fixation of subtrochanteric femoral fractures.
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.
Forward Daren P, Doro Christopher J, OʼToole Robert V, Kim Hyunchul, Floyd John C P, Sciadini Marcus F, Turen Clifford H, Hsieh Adam H, Nascone Jason W
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the biomechanical performance of a cephalomedullary nail (CMN), a proximal femoral locking plate, and a 95° angled blade plate in a comminuted subtrochanteric fracture model.
METHODS: A comminuted subtrochanteric femoral fracture model was created with a 2-cm gap below the lesser trochanter in 15 pairs of human cadaveric femora confirmed to be nonosteoporotic. The femora were randomized to treatment with one of the previously mentioned 3 devices. Each was tested under incrementally increasing cyclic load up to 90,000 cycles from 50% to 250% of body weight to simulate progressive weight bearing during 3 months of an average 700-N (approximately, 70 kg or 150 lb) person. Force, number of cycles, and total load sustained to reach 10 mm of displacement were compared. Failure modes were also noted.
RESULTS: The CMN construct withstood significantly more cycles, failed at a significantly higher force, and withstood a significantly greater load than either of the plate constructs (P < 0.001). Varus collapse was significantly lower in the CMN construct (P < 0.0001). Modes of failure differed among implant-bone constructs with damage to the femoral head through implant cutout in 5 of 10 blade plate specimens and 2 of 10 CMN specimens, whereas no damage to the femoral head bone was observed in any of the locking plate constructs.
CONCLUSIONS: The CMN construct was biomechanically superior to either the locking plate or 95° blade plate constructs. The locking plate construct was biomechanically equivalent to the blade plate construct.
METHODS: A comminuted subtrochanteric femoral fracture model was created with a 2-cm gap below the lesser trochanter in 15 pairs of human cadaveric femora confirmed to be nonosteoporotic. The femora were randomized to treatment with one of the previously mentioned 3 devices. Each was tested under incrementally increasing cyclic load up to 90,000 cycles from 50% to 250% of body weight to simulate progressive weight bearing during 3 months of an average 700-N (approximately, 70 kg or 150 lb) person. Force, number of cycles, and total load sustained to reach 10 mm of displacement were compared. Failure modes were also noted.
RESULTS: The CMN construct withstood significantly more cycles, failed at a significantly higher force, and withstood a significantly greater load than either of the plate constructs (P < 0.001). Varus collapse was significantly lower in the CMN construct (P < 0.0001). Modes of failure differed among implant-bone constructs with damage to the femoral head through implant cutout in 5 of 10 blade plate specimens and 2 of 10 CMN specimens, whereas no damage to the femoral head bone was observed in any of the locking plate constructs.
CONCLUSIONS: The CMN construct was biomechanically superior to either the locking plate or 95° blade plate constructs. The locking plate construct was biomechanically equivalent to the blade plate construct.