Static bending test after proximal femoral nail (PFN) removal - in vitro analysis

Energy Required for Fracture in Synthetic Proximal Femoral Models After Synthesis Material Removal: a Biomechanical Study Using Cannulated Screws, Dynamic Hip Screws, and Proximal Femoral Nails

Objective  The present study aims to identify the energy required for synthetic proximal femoral fracture after removal of three implant types: cannulated screws, dynamic hip screws (DHS), and proximal femoral nail (PFN).

Methods  Twenty-five synthetic proximal femur bones were used: 10 were kept intact as the control group (CG), 5 were submitted to the placement and removal of 3 cannulated screws in an inverted triangle configuration (CSG), 5 were submitted to the placement and removal of a dynamic compression screw (DHSG), and 5 were submitted to the placement and removal of a proximal femur nail (PFNG). All samples were biomechanically analyzed simulating a fall on the greater trochanter using a servo-hydraulic machine to determine the energy (in Joules [J]) required for fracture.

Results  All samples presented basicervical fractures. The energy required for fracture was 7.1 J, 6.6 J, 6 J, and 6.7 J for the CG, CSG, DHSG and PFNG, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference (considering a 95% confidence interval) in energy among the study groups ( p  = 0.34).

Conclusion  There was no statistically significant difference in the energy required to cause a synthetic proximal femoral fracture after removing all three implant types and simulating a fall over the greater trochanter.

Biomechanical Test after Hip Cannulated Screw Removal (in vitro Analysis)

Objective  This study aims to evaluate, through biomechanical tests, the resistance and energy required for proximal femoral fracture in synthetic bones after removing cannulated screws shaped as an inverted triangle, comparing the obtained results to those of a reinforcement technique with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) as bone cement. Methods  Twenty synthetic bones were used: 10 units for the control group (CG), 5 units for the test group without reinforcement (TGW/O), and 5 units for the test group using a reinforcement technique with PMMA (TGW). The biomechanical analysis simulated a fall on the large trochanter using a servo-hydraulic machine. Results  All TGW/O and CG specimens had a basicervical fracture. Three TGW specimens presented a basicervical fracture, and two suffered a fracture near the fixation point of the device (femoral diaphyseal region), with one of them being associated with a femoral neck fracture. A mean PMMA volume of 8.2 mL was used to fill the 3 screw holes in the TGW group. According to the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey multiple comparisons tests at a 5% level, the TGW presented a statistically significant difference when compared with the other groups in all parameters: maximal load ( p  = 0.001) and energy until fracture ( p  = 0.0001). Conclusion  The simple removal of the cannulated screws did not reduce significantly the maximum load and energy for fracture occurrence, but the proximal femoral reinforcement with PMMA significantly increased these parameters, modifying the fracture pattern.

Biomechanical Test Following Removal of a Dynamic Hip Screw: In Vitro Analysis

The objective of this study was to evaluate, by means of a static flexural test, the biomechanical parameters necessary for the occurrence of a proximal femoral fracture in a synthetic bone model after the removal of a dynamic hip screw (DHS) and comparing the results obtained with a reinforcement technique using polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA).

Twenty synthetic bones made of the same material and from the same manufacturer were used: ten units as the control group (CG), five units as the test group without reinforcement (TG), and five units as the test group with reinforcement (TGR). The biomechanical analysis was performed simulating a fall over the trochanter using a servo-hydraulic machine. In the control group, the assay was performed with its integrity preserved. In the TG and TGR groups, a DHS model was introduced, and the tests were performed as follows: TG after simple removal of the synthesis material, and in the TGR group, after removal of the synthesis material and filling the orifice of the femoral neck with PMMA.

All groups presented with a basicervical fracture of the femoral neck. The CG group presented a mean of 935 newtons (N) of maximum load and 7.0 joules (J) of energy for fracture occurrence. TG and TGR groups presented, respectively, a maximum load of 750 N and 1,068 N, and energy of 6.0 J and 7.3 J. According to the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), there was no significant difference in flow load (p = 0.16), energy to flow (p = 0.16), stiffness (p = 0.28), maximum load (p = 0.10), and energy to fracture (p = 0.54) between the studied groups.

The removal of the DHS implant from the synthetic bone did not present a significant increase of the maximum load and the energy necessary for the occurrence of a fracture with the use of the PMMA reinforcement technique.

[Comparative study of proximal femoral shortening after the third generation of Gamma nail versus proximal femoral nail anti-rotation in treatment of intertrochanteric fracture]

Objective

To explore the difference of the proximal femoral shortening (PFS) between the third generation of Gamma nail (TGN) and the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) in treating intertrochanteric fracture of femur.

Methods

The clinical data of 158 patients with intertrochanteric fracture of femur who were treated with TGN internal fixation or PFNA internal fixation between January 2014 and December 2015 were retrospectively analysed. The patients were divided into TGN group (69 cases) and PFNA group (89 cases) according to surgical operation. There was no significant difference in gender, age, bone mineral density, causes of injury, AO/Association for the Study of Internal Fixation (AO/ASIF) classification, accompanied disease, and the time from injury to operation between 2 groups ( P>0.05). The result of fracture reduction was divided into 3 types: positive medial cortex support, neutral position cortex support, and negative medial cortex support according to the method of Chang et al. At 18 months postoperatively, bilateral hip anteroposterior X-ray films were taken to measure horizontal PFS values (marked as X), vertical PFS values (marked as Y), and calculate the total PFS values (marked as Z). The PFS values were divided into 4 grades according to the criteria (≤1.0 mm, 1.0-4.9 mm, 5.0-9.9 mm, and ≥10.0 mm), and the constituent ratio was calculated and compared between 2 groups. The X, Y, and Z values and the collodiaphyseal angles of 2 groups at 18 months postoperatively were compared. The X, Y, and Z values of 2 groups of patients with failed fixation and normal healing within 18 months after operation were recorded and compared. The X, Y, and Z values of 2 groups of the patients with different cortex support types were also compared.

Results

There were 34 cases of positive medial cortex support, 30 cases of neutral position cortex support, and 5 cases of negative medial cortex support in TGN group, and there were 45, 33, and 11 cases in PFNA group respectively, showing no significant difference between 2 groups ( Z=-1.06, P=0.29). All patients were followed up 18 months after operation. At 18 months after operation, the constituent ratios of PFS values (X, Y, Z) had significant differences between 2 groups ( P<0.05). The patients of shortening of 1.0-4.9 mm and 5.0-9.9 mm were obviously more in TGN group than in PFNA group; the patients of shortening of ≥10.0 mm were obviously more in PFNA group than in TGN group. There were significant differences in X, Y, and Z values between 2 groups ( P<0.05), but no significant difference of the collodiaphysial angle was found between 2 groups ( t=0.47, P=0.64). Six cases of internal fixation failed in TGN group and PFNA group respectively within 3 months after operation, and there was no significant difference of X, Y, and Z values between failed fixation and normal healing patients within 2 groups ( P>0.05). When the reposition effect was the positive medial cortex support, the X, Y, and Z values were significantly lower in TGN group than in PFNA group ( P<0.05); but no significant difference was found between 2 groups when the reposition effect was the neutral position cortex support or negative medial cortex support ( P>0.05). At 18 months after operation, the X, Y, and Z values of the negative medial cortex support patients were significantly higher than those of the positive medial cortex support or the neutral position cortex support patients within 2 groups ( P<0.05).

Conclusion

PFS is a common complication of the intertrochanteric fracture of the femur after internal fixation. During operation, the selection of internal fixation should be based on the results of intraoperative reduction. TGN should be applied to reduce PFS if positive medial cortex support happened.