Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Biomechanical comparison of dynamic hip screw, proximal femoral nail, cannulated screw, and monoaxial external fixation in the treatment of basicervical femoral neck fractures [Biomechanické porovnání dynamického skluzného šroubu, proximálního femorálního hřebu, kanylovaného šroubu a monoaxiální zevní fixace při léčbě bazicervikálních zlomenin krčku femuru]

Y. Imren, V. Gurkan, K. Bilsel, E. E. Desteli, M. Tuna, C. Gurcan, I. Tuncay, C. Sen

. 2015 ; 82 (2) : 140-144.

Language English Country Czech Republic

Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc16003183

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The objective of this study was to establish relative fixation strengths of proximal femoral nail (PFN), dynamic hip screw (DHS), monolateral external fixator (EF), and cannulated screw (CS) in basicervical hip fracture model. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study involved four groups of implanted composite proximal femoral synthetic bones of eight specimens per group; nailing with PFN, DHS, fixation with three cannulated screws, and EF. 70˚ osteotomy was performed to simulate a Pauwels Type 3 basicervical fracture. Minimum preload of 100 N was applied before loading to failure. The constructs were subjected to cyclic loading with 16˚ to midline from 100 N to 1,000 N for 10,000 cycles at 3Hz. Axial loading was applied at 10 mm/min until failure. Failure load, failure mode, and displacement were documented. RESULTS Mean failure load was 2182.5 ± 377.9 N in PFN group, 2008.75 ± 278.4 N in DHS group, 1941.25 ± 171.6 N in EF group, and 1551.6 ± 236.2 N in CS group. Average displacement was 15.6 ± 4.5 mm, 15.5 ± 6.7 mm, 11.7 ± 1.9 mm, and 15 ± 1.7 mm, respectively. No significant difference was noted among groups for fixation strength except CS group. All CS constructs failed during cyclic loading. CONCLUSION Our findings suggest that PFN, DHS and EF achieved higher fixation strengths than CS in basicervical fracture. PFN has higher failure loads and possesses biomechanical benefits for fixation of unstable basicervical fractures compared with DHS and EF. Key words: basicervical fracture, internal fixation, biomechanics.

Biomechanické porovnání dynamického skluzného šroubu, proximálního femorálního hřebu, kanylovaného šroubu a monoaxiální zevní fixace při léčbě bazicervikálních zlomenin krčku femuru

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc16003183
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20160210111448.0
007      
ta
008      
160128s2015 xr ad f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$2 doi $a 10.55095/achot2015/020
035    __
$a (PubMed)26317185
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xr
100    1_
$a Imren, Y. $u Orthopaedics & Traumatology Department, Gskůdar State Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
245    10
$a Biomechanical comparison of dynamic hip screw, proximal femoral nail, cannulated screw, and monoaxial external fixation in the treatment of basicervical femoral neck fractures / $c Y. Imren, V. Gurkan, K. Bilsel, E. E. Desteli, M. Tuna, C. Gurcan, I. Tuncay, C. Sen
246    31
$a Biomechanické porovnání dynamického skluzného šroubu, proximálního femorálního hřebu, kanylovaného šroubu a monoaxiální zevní fixace při léčbě bazicervikálních zlomenin krčku femuru
520    3_
$a PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The objective of this study was to establish relative fixation strengths of proximal femoral nail (PFN), dynamic hip screw (DHS), monolateral external fixator (EF), and cannulated screw (CS) in basicervical hip fracture model. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study involved four groups of implanted composite proximal femoral synthetic bones of eight specimens per group; nailing with PFN, DHS, fixation with three cannulated screws, and EF. 70˚ osteotomy was performed to simulate a Pauwels Type 3 basicervical fracture. Minimum preload of 100 N was applied before loading to failure. The constructs were subjected to cyclic loading with 16˚ to midline from 100 N to 1,000 N for 10,000 cycles at 3Hz. Axial loading was applied at 10 mm/min until failure. Failure load, failure mode, and displacement were documented. RESULTS Mean failure load was 2182.5 ± 377.9 N in PFN group, 2008.75 ± 278.4 N in DHS group, 1941.25 ± 171.6 N in EF group, and 1551.6 ± 236.2 N in CS group. Average displacement was 15.6 ± 4.5 mm, 15.5 ± 6.7 mm, 11.7 ± 1.9 mm, and 15 ± 1.7 mm, respectively. No significant difference was noted among groups for fixation strength except CS group. All CS constructs failed during cyclic loading. CONCLUSION Our findings suggest that PFN, DHS and EF achieved higher fixation strengths than CS in basicervical fracture. PFN has higher failure loads and possesses biomechanical benefits for fixation of unstable basicervical fractures compared with DHS and EF. Key words: basicervical fracture, internal fixation, biomechanics.
650    12
$a kostní hřeby $7 D001858
650    12
$a kostní šrouby $7 D001863
650    12
$a externí fixátory $7 D016267
650    _2
$a fraktury krčku femuru $x chirurgie $7 D005265
650    _2
$a vnitřní fixace fraktury $x přístrojové vybavení $7 D005593
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a testování materiálů $7 D008422
650    _2
$a biologické modely $7 D008954
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Gurkan, V. $u Orthopaedics & Traumatology Department, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey
700    1_
$a Bilsel, K. $u Orthopaedics & Traumatology Department, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey
700    1_
$a Desteli, E. E. $u Orthopaedics & Traumatology Department, Gskůdar State Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
700    1_
$a Tuna, M. $u Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
700    1_
$a Gurcan, C. $u Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
700    1_
$a Tuncay, I. $u Orthopaedics & Traumatology Department, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey
700    1_
$a Sen, C. $u Orthopaedics & Traumatology Department, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
773    0_
$w MED00011021 $t Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Čechoslovaca $x 0001-5415 $g Roč. 82, č. 2 (2015), s. 140-144
910    __
$a ABA008 $b A 8 $c 507 $y 4 $z 0
990    __
$a 20160128 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20160210104607 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1106882 $s 927429
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2015 $b 82 $c 2 $d 140-144 $i 0001-5415 $m Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Čechoslovaca $n Acta chir. orthop. traumatol. Čechoslovaca $x MED00011021
LZP    __
$b NLK118 $a Pubmed-20160128

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options