Is bone-cement augmentation of screw-anchor fixation systems superior in unstable femoral neck fractures? A biomechanical cadaveric study

Comparison of dynamic hip screw with anti-rotation screw and femoral neck system internal fixation for the treatment of garden II-IV type femoral neck fractures

BACKGROUND

Femoral neck fractures, which are fractures occurring from the femoral head to the base of the femoral neck, are prevalent in the elderly population. With the progression of societal aging, the incidence of femoral neck fractures has been steadily increasing, making it a significant global issue that urgently needs to be addressed.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of dynamic hip screw (DHS) with anti-rotation screw and femoral neck system (FNS) internal fixation for the treatment of Garden II-IV type femoral neck fractures.

METHODS

A total of 90 patients with Garden II-IV type femoral neck fractures were randomly assigned to either the control group (n= 45) treated with DHS and anti-rotation screw or the experimental group (n= 45) treated with FNS. Surgical outcomes, including incision size, blood loss, operation time, fluoroscopy frequency, and fracture healing time, were compared. Postoperative complication rates, reoperation rates, Harris scores, and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were also assessed.

RESULTS

The experimental group demonstrated significantly reduced incision length, blood loss, operation time, and fluoroscopy frequency compared to the control group (P< 0.01). No significant differences were observed in fracture healing time, Garden classification, or fracture reduction outcomes between the two groups (P> 0.05). At 6 months post-treatment, both groups showed significant improvements in Harris scores and VAS scores compared to pre-treatment (P< 0.05), with no significant differences between the groups (P> 0.05). The rates of internal fixation failure, nonunion, and avascular necrosis of the femoral head, as well as overall incidence of postoperative complications and reoperation rates, showed no significant differences between the two groups (P> 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both DHS with anti-rotation screw and FNS internal fixation demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety profiles in the treatment of Garden II-IV type femoral neck fractures. The experimental group showed advantages in terms of reduced incision length, blood loss, operation time, and fluoroscopy frequency, while maintaining similar clinical outcomes and complication rates.

Biomechanical evaluation of two modified intramedullary fixation system for treating unstable femoral neck fractures: A finite element analysis

Purpose: The existing implants for fixation of femoral neck fractures have poor biomechanical stability, so the failure rate is high. We designed two modified intramedullary implants for treating unstable femoral neck fractures (UFNFs). We tried to improve the biomechanical stability of fixation by shortening the moment and reducing stress concentration. Each modified intramedullary implant was compared with cannulated screws (CSs) through finite element analysis (FEA). Methods: Five different models were included: three cannulated screws (CSs, Model 1) in an inverted triangle configuration, the dynamic hip screw with an anti-rotation screw (DHS + AS, Model 2), the femoral neck system (FNS, Model 3), the modified intramedullary femoral neck system (IFNS, Model 4), and the modified intramedullary interlocking system (IIS, Model 5). Three-dimensional (3D) models of femur and implants were constructed by using 3D modelling software. Three load cases were simulated to assess the maximal displacement of models and fracture surface. The maximal stress at the bone and implants was also evaluated. Results: FEA data showed that Model 5 had the best performance in terms of maximum displacement while Model 1 had the worst performance for this index under axial load of 2100 N. With respect to Maximum stress, Model 4 had the best performance while Model 2 had the worst performance under axial load. The general trends under bending and torsion load were consistent with that under axial load. Our data demonstrated that the two modified intramedullary implants exhibited the best biomechanical stability, followed by FNS and DHS + AS, and then three cannulated screws in axial, bending, and torsion load cases. Conclusion: The two modified intramedullary designs showed the best biomechanical performance among the five implants included in this study. Therefore, this might provide some new options for trauma surgeons to deal with unstable femoral neck fractures.

Biomechanical analysis of recently released cephalomedullary nails for trochanteric femoral fracture fixation in a human cadaveric model

BACKGROUND

Recently, two novel concepts for intramedullary nailing of trochanteric fractures using a helical blade or interlocking dual screws have demonstrated advantages as compared to standard single-screw systems. However, these two concepts have not been subjected to a direct biomechanical comparison so far. The aims of this study were to investigate in a human cadaveric model with low bone quality (1) the biomechanical competence of nailing with the use of a helical blade versus interlocking screws, and (2) the effect of cement augmentation on the fixation strength of the helical blade.

METHODS

Twelve osteoporotic and osteopenic human cadaveric femoral pairs were assigned for pairwise implantation using either a short TFN-ADVANCED Proximal Femoral Nailing System (TFNA) with a helical blade head element or a short TRIGEN INTERTAN Intertrochanteric Antegrade Nail (InterTAN) with interlocking screws. Six osteoporotic femora, implanted with TFNA, were augmented with bone cement. Four groups were created: group 1 (TFNA) paired with group 2 (InterTAN), both consisting of osteopenic specimens, and group 3 (TFNA augmented) paired with group 4 (InterTAN), both consisting of osteoporotic specimens. An unstable trochanteric AO/OTA 31-A2.2 fracture was simulated and all specimens were tested until failure under progressively increasing cyclic loading.

RESULTS

Stiffness in group 3 was significantly higher versus group 4, p = 0.03. Varus (°) and femoral head rotation around the femoral neck axis (°) after 10,000 cycles were 1.9 ± 1.0/0.3 ± 0.2 in group 1, 2.2 ± 0.7/0.7 ± 0.4 in group 2, 1.5 ± 1.3/0.3 ± 0.2 in group 3 and 3.5 ± 2.8/0.9 ± 0.6 in group 4, being significantly different between groups 3 and 4, p = 0.04. Cycles to failure and failure load (N) at 5° varus or 10° femoral head rotation around the neck axis in groups 1-4 were 21,428 ± 6020/1571.4 ± 301.0, 20,611 ± 7453/1530.6 ± 372.7, 21,739 ± 4248/1587.0 ± 212.4 and 18,622 ± 6733/1431.1 ± 336.7, being significantly different between groups 3 and 4, p = 0.04.

CONCLUSIONS

Nailing of trochanteric femoral fractures with use of helical blades is comparable to interlocking dual screws fixation in femoral head fragments with low bone quality. Bone cement augmentation of helical blades provides significantly greater fixation strength compared to interlocking screws constructs.

Impact of Anterior Malposition and Bone Cement Augmentation on the Fixation Strength of Cephalic Intramedullary Nail Head Elements

Background and Objectives: Intramedullary nailing of trochanteric fractures can be challenging and sometimes the clinical situation does not allow perfect implant positioning. The aim of this study was (1) to compare in human cadaveric femoral heads the biomechanical competence of two recently launched cephalic implants inserted in either an ideal (centre-centre) or less-ideal anterior off-centre position, and (2) to investigate the effect of bone cement augmentation on their fixation strength in the less-ideal position. Materials and Methods: Fourty-two paired human cadaveric femoral heads were assigned for pairwise implantation using either a TFNA helical blade or a TFNA screw as head element, implanted in either centre-centre or 7 mm anterior off-centre position. Next, seven paired specimens implanted in the off-centre position were augmented with bone cement. As a result, six study groups were created as follows: group 1 with a centre-centre positioned helical blade, paired with group 2 featuring a centre-centre screw, group 3 with an off-centre positioned helical blade, paired with group 4 featuring an off-centre screw, and group 5 with an off-centre positioned augmented helical blade, paired with group 6 featuring an off-centre augmented screw. All specimens were tested until failure under progressively increasing cyclic loading. Results: Stiffness was not significantly different among the study groups (p = 0.388). Varus deformation was significantly higher in group 4 versus group 6 (p = 0.026). Femoral head rotation was significantly higher in group 4 versus group 3 (p = 0.034), significantly lower in group 2 versus group 4 (p = 0.005), and significantly higher in group 4 versus group 6 (p = 0.007). Cycles to clinically relevant failure were 14,919 ± 4763 in group 1, 10,824 ± 5396 in group 2, 10,900 ± 3285 in group 3, 1382 ± 2701 in group 4, 25,811 ± 19,107 in group 5 and 17,817 ± 11,924 in group 6. Significantly higher number of cycles to failure were indicated for group 1 versus group 2 (p = 0.021), group 3 versus group 4 (p = 0.007), and in group 6 versus group 4 (p = 0.010). Conclusions: From a biomechanical perspective, proper centre-centre implant positioning in the femoral head is of utmost importance. In cases when this is not achievable in a clinical setting, a helical blade is more forgiving in the less ideal (anterior) malposition when compared to a screw, the latter revealing unacceptable low resistance to femoral head rotation and early failure. Cement augmentation of both off-centre implanted helical blade and screw head elements increases their resistance against failure; however, this effect might be redundant for helical blades and is highly unpredictable for screws.

Biomechanical comparison of the femoral neck system versus InterTan nail and three cannulated screws for unstable Pauwels type III femoral neck fracture

BACKGROUND

There are a variety of internal fixation methods for unstable femoral neck fractures (FNFs), but the best method is still unclear. Femoral neck system (FNS) is a dynamic angular stabilization system with cross screws, and is a new internal fixation implant designed for minimally invasive fixation of FNFs. In this study, we conducted a biomechanical comparison of FNS, InterTan nail and three cannulated screws for the treatment of Pauwels III FNFs and investigate the biomechanical properties of FNS.

METHODS

A total of 18 left artificial femurs were selected and randomly divide into Group A (fixation with FNS), Group B (fixation with InterTan nail) and Group C (fixation with three cannulated screws), with 6 specimens in each group. After creating Pauwels type III FNF models, the specimens in each were tested with non-destructive quasi-static tests, including torsion, A-P bending and axial compression tests. The average slope of the linear load-deformation curve obtained from quasi-static tests defines the initial torsional stiffness, A-P bending stiffness, and axial compression stiffness. After cyclic loading test was applied, the overall deformation of models and local deformation of implant holes in each group were assessed. The overall deformation was estimated as the displacement recorded by the software of the mechanical testing apparatus. Local deformation was defined as interfragmental displacement. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni post hoc test using the SPSS software (version 24.0, IBM, New York, NY, USA). Correlation analysis was performed using Pearson's correlation analysis.

RESULTS

Group B exhibited significantly higher axial stiffness and A-P bending stiffness than the other two groups (P < 0.01), while Group A had significantly higher axial stiffness and A-P bending stiffness than Group C (P < 0.01). Groups A and B exhibited significantly higher torsional stiffness than Group C (P < 0.01), no statistical significance was observed between Groups A and B (P > 0.05). Group B exhibited significantly lower overall and local deformations than the other two groups (P < 0.01), while Group A had significantly lower overall and local deformations than Group C (P < 0.01). Correlation analysis revealed positive correlation between axial stiffness and A-P bending stiffness (r = 0.925, P < 0.01), torsional stiffness (r = 0.727, P < 0.01), between torsional stiffness and A-P bending stiffness; negative correlation between overall, local deformations and axial stiffness (r = - 0.889, - 0.901, respectively, both P < 0.01), and positive correlation between the two deformations (r = - 0.978, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

For fixation of unstable FNFs, InterTan nail showed the highest axial stiffness and A-P bending stiffness, followed by FNS, and then three cannulated screws. Torsional stiffness of FNS was comparable to that of the InterTan nail. FNS, as a novel minimally invasive implant, can create good mechanical environment for the healing of unstable FNFs. Clinical studies are needed to confirm the potential advantages of FNS observed in this biomechanical study.

Impact of Bone Cement Augmentation on the Fixation Strength of TFNA Blades and Screws

Background and Objectives: Hip fractures constitute the most debilitating complication of osteoporosis with steadily increasing incidences in the aging population. Their intramedullary nailing can be challenging because of poor anchorage in the osteoporotic femoral head. Cement augmentation of Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA) blades demonstrated promising results by enhancing cut-out resistance in proximal femoral fractures. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of augmentation on the fixation strength of TFN-ADVANCEDTM Proximal Femoral Nailing System (TFNA) blades and screws within the femoral head and compare its effect when they are implanted in centre or anteroposterior off-centre position. Materials and Methods: Eight groups were formed out of 96 polyurethane low-density foam specimens simulating isolated femoral heads with poor bone quality. The specimens in each group were implanted with either non-augmented or cement-augmented TFNA blades or screws in centre or anteroposterior off-centre positions, 7 mm anterior or posterior. Mechanical testing was performed under progressively increasing cyclic loading until failure, in setup simulating an unstable pertrochanteric fracture with a lack of posteromedial support and load sharing at the fracture gap. Varus-valgus and head rotation angles were monitored. A varus collapse of 5° or 10° head rotation was defined as a clinically relevant failure. Results: Failure load (N) for specimens with augmented TFNA head elements (screw/blade centre: 3799 ± 326/3228 ± 478; screw/blade off-centre: 2680 ± 182/2591 ± 244) was significantly higher compared with respective non-augmented specimens (screw/blade centre: 1593 ± 120/1489 ± 41; screw/blade off-centre: 515 ± 73/1018 ± 48), p < 0.001. For both non-augmented and augmented specimens failure load in the centre position was significantly higher compared with the respective off-centre positions, regardless of the head element type, p < 0.001. Augmented off-centre TFNA head elements had significantly higher failure load compared with non-augmented centrally placed implants, p < 0.001. Conclusions: Cement augmentation clearly enhances the fixation stability of TFNA blades and screws. Non-augmented blades outperformed screws in the anteroposterior off-centre position. Positioning of TFNA blades in the femoral head is more forgiving than TFNA screws in terms of failure load.

Medial femoral plate with cannulated screw for Pauwels type III femoral neck fracture: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Femoral neck fractures often occur in the elderly, which usually results in hip pain.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference in the treatment of Pauwels type III femoral neck fractures with medial femoral support plate combined with cannulated screws and cannulated screws alone.

METHODS

PubMed, ScienceDirect, China Academic Journals Full-text Database (CNKI), Wanfang Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Embase and Cochrane Library were used to collect clinical controlled trials of the medial femoral support plate combined with hollow screw internal fixation and simple hollow screw internal fixation for Pauwels type III femoral neck fracture.

RESULTS

Seven articles (n= 409 cases) were evaluated for quality and included in this meta-analysis. Four hundred and nine patients with Pauwels type III femoral neck fractures were included: 202 in the experimental group and 207 in the control group. The results showed that, compared with simple hollow screw internal fixation, the medial femoral support plate combined with hollow screw internal fixation has a longer operation time (MD= 23.05, 95% CI= 13.86-32.24), and more intraoperative blood loss (MD= 91.55, 95% CI= 50.72-132.39), shorter healing time (MD=-1.48, 95% CI (-1.71, -1.26)), lower incidence of complications (RR= 0.34, 95% CI= 0.19-0.61), lower VAS score (MD=-1.28, 95% CI (-1.83, -0.72)), and higher Harris score (MD= 8.49, 95% CI (4.15, 12.83)).

CONCLUSION

Medial femoral plate combined with cannulated screw for Pauwels type III femoral neck fracture can shorten healing time, reduce postoperative complications, and improve the postoperative Harris score.

Cement augmentation of internal fixation for trochanteric fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of cement augmentation for internally fixed trochanteric fractures through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify RCTs, published until July 2020 that examined the effects of cement augmentation of internal fixation of trochanteric fractures. The primary outcomes were reoperation and Parker Mobility Score, whereas the secondary outcomes were 1-year mortality rate, EuroQol 5 Dimension, fixation failures, and adverse events. We conducted meta-analyses of the outcome measures using the random-effects models. We evaluated the certainty of evidence based on the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

We included three RCTs (326 participants). No significant effect was observed in favor of cement augmentation on all these outcomes. The certainty of evidence for fixation failures was very low and that for the other outcomes was low. The overall risk of bias for each outcome was high or of some concern in all included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of cement augmentation of internal fixation of trochanteric fractures was uncertain for the clinical outcomes due to the low certainty of evidence. Further RCTs with a low risk of selection bias may present convincing conclusions on the efficacy and safety of cement augmentation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 1.

Screw-blade fixation systems for implant anchorage in the femoral head: Horizontal blade orientation provides superior stability

OBJECTIVES

Despite continual improvement in the methods and devices used for treatment of proximal femoral fractures, unacceptably high failure rates remain. Novel screw-blade implant systems, combining a lag screw with a blade - the latter adding rotational stability to the femoral head - offer improvement of osseous purchase, especially in osteoporotic bone. The aim of this study was to compare biomechanically the head element (HE) anchorage of two screw-blade implant systems differing in blade orientation in the femoral head - vertical versus horizontal.

METHODS

Twenty paired human cadaveric femoral heads were assigned to four groups (n = 10), implanted with either Rotationally Stable Screw-Anchor HE (RoSA-HE, vertical blade orientation) or Gamma3 Rotation Control Lag Screw (Gamma-RC, horizontal blade orientation) in center or off-center position, and biomechanically tested until failure under progressively increasing cyclic loading at 2 Hz.

RESULTS

Cycles to failure and failure load were significantly higher for Gamma-RC versus RoSA-HE in center position and not significantly different between them in off-center position, p = 0.03 and p = 0.22, respectively. In center position, the progression of both rotation around implant axis and varus deformation over time demonstrated superiority of the implant with horizontal versus vertical blade orientation. Compared with center positioning, off-center implant placement led to a significant decrease in stiffness, cycles to failure and failure load for Gamma-RC, but not for RoSA-HE, p < 0.01 and p = 0.99, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Horizontal blade orientation of screw-blade implant systems demonstrates better anchorage in the femoral head versus vertical blade orientation in center position. As the stability of the implant system with horizontal blade orientation drops sharply in off-center position, central insertion is its placement of choice.

Higher stability and more predictive fixation with the Femoral Neck System versus Hansson Pins in femoral neck fractures Pauwels II

Objectives

To evaluate the biomechanical performance of the Femoral Neck System (FNS) versus the Hansson Pin System (Hansson Pins) with two parallel pins in a Pauwels II femoral neck fracture model with posterior comminution.

Methods

Forty-degree Pauwels II femoral neck fractures AO 31-B2.1 with 15° posterior wedge were simulated in fourteen paired fresh-frozen human femora, followed by instrumentation with either FNS or Hansson Pins in pair-matched fashion. Implant positioning was quantified by measuring shortest implant distances to inferior cortex (DI) and posterior cortex (DP) on anteroposterior and axial X-rays, respectively. Biomechanical testing was performed in 20° adduction and 10° flexion with simulated iliopsoas muscle tension. Progressively increasing cyclic loading was applied until construct failure. Interfragmentary femoral head-to-shaft movements were measured with optical motion tracking.

Results

Cycles to 10° varus deformation were significantly higher for FNS (23007 ​± ​5496) versus Hansson Pins (17289 ​± ​4686), P ​= ​0.027. Cycles to 10° femoral head dorsal tilting (FNS: 12765 ​± ​3425; Hansson Pins: 13357 ​± ​6104) and cycles to 10° rotation around the femoral neck axis (FNS: 24453 ​± ​5073; Hansson Pins: 20185 ​± ​11065) were comparable between the implants, P ​≥ ​0.314. For Hansson Pins, the outcomes for varus deformation and dorsal tilting correlated significantly with DI and DP, respectively (P ​≤ ​0.047), whereas these correlations were not significant for FNS (P ​≥ ​0.310).

Conclusions

From a biomechanical perspective, by providing superior resistance against varus deformation and performing in a less sensitive way to variations in implant placement, the angular stable Femoral Neck System can be considered as a valid alternative to the Hansson Pin System for the treatment of Pauwels II femoral neck fractures.

Level of evidence

therapeutic, Level V.

The Translational potential of this article

The translational potential of this article is to compare the performance of the FNS with Hansson Pins in a AO 31-B2.1 fracture model featuring a 15 posterior wedge to show the implants behavior concerning the dorsal tilting tendency.