Journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2008
Biomechanical comparison of a 2 and 3 proximal screw-configured antegrade piriformis intramedullary nail with a trochanteric reconstruction nail in an unstable subtrochanteric fracture model.
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.
Fissel Brian, Moed Berton R, Bledsoe J Gary
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to test the stiffness and ultimate load to failure of new intramedullary (IM) nail proximal screw configurations as compared to a trochanteric reconstruction nail.
METHODS: Twenty-one synthetic composite femurs were mounted on a Material Testing System and tested in axial compression 5 times. The femurs had an 1 of 2 IM nail types inserted with 1 of 3 proximal screw configurations: a 3-screw configuration with 2 transverse screws and a screw angled into the femoral neck; a 2-screw design with a single transverse screw and a single screw angled into the femoral neck; 2 parallel screws angled into the femoral neck. There were 7 specimens in each group. An unstable fracture (OTA/AO 32-C3.2) was created. and the stiffness of these constructs was tested in compression 5 times. Each construct was then loaded to failure in compression.
RESULTS: The 3-screw construct provided more axial stiffness (214 N/mm +/- 75) than either the 2-screw construct (123 N/mm +/- 32) or the trochanteric reconstruction nail (127 N/mm +/- 21) (P = 0.017 and 0.035 for 3-screw vs. 2-screw and recon respectively, P = 0.45 for 2-screw vs. recon). Load-to-failure testing demonstrated similarity among the different screw configurations (3-screw = 2230 N +/- 265, 2-screw = 2283 N +/- 260, Reconstruction nail = 2121 N +/- 156) (P = 1.0 all groups).
CONCLUSIONS: The proximal 3-screw configuration provided more stiffness than either the 2-screw configuration or trochanteric reconstruction nail. The 2-screw configuration performed equally to a standard trochanteric reconstruction nail in stiffness testing. The ultimate loads to failure for the 3 tested constructs were not significantly different.
METHODS: Twenty-one synthetic composite femurs were mounted on a Material Testing System and tested in axial compression 5 times. The femurs had an 1 of 2 IM nail types inserted with 1 of 3 proximal screw configurations: a 3-screw configuration with 2 transverse screws and a screw angled into the femoral neck; a 2-screw design with a single transverse screw and a single screw angled into the femoral neck; 2 parallel screws angled into the femoral neck. There were 7 specimens in each group. An unstable fracture (OTA/AO 32-C3.2) was created. and the stiffness of these constructs was tested in compression 5 times. Each construct was then loaded to failure in compression.
RESULTS: The 3-screw construct provided more axial stiffness (214 N/mm +/- 75) than either the 2-screw construct (123 N/mm +/- 32) or the trochanteric reconstruction nail (127 N/mm +/- 21) (P = 0.017 and 0.035 for 3-screw vs. 2-screw and recon respectively, P = 0.45 for 2-screw vs. recon). Load-to-failure testing demonstrated similarity among the different screw configurations (3-screw = 2230 N +/- 265, 2-screw = 2283 N +/- 260, Reconstruction nail = 2121 N +/- 156) (P = 1.0 all groups).
CONCLUSIONS: The proximal 3-screw configuration provided more stiffness than either the 2-screw configuration or trochanteric reconstruction nail. The 2-screw configuration performed equally to a standard trochanteric reconstruction nail in stiffness testing. The ultimate loads to failure for the 3 tested constructs were not significantly different.