The Analysis of Biomechanical Properties of Proximal Femur after Implant Removal

Conversion Birmingham Hip Resurfacing in Managing Post-traumatic Arthritis With Retained Femoral Hardware: A Case Report

CASE

A 70-year-old man with a year-long history of arthritic pain in his left hip presented to our clinic. He had a left intertrochanteric hip fracture 6 years ago, fixed with an open reduction internal fixation with a cephalomedullary nail. He underwent a conversion Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) with removal of the proximal helicoidal blade and retention of the intramedullary nail. At 7-year follow-up, the patient reported satisfactory clinical outcomes and excellent radiographic fixation.

CONCLUSION

This case highlights using conversion BHR in patients with post-traumatic arthritis with retained femoral hardware as an alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty.

Refracture After Removal of the PFNA in a Healed Intertrochanteric Femoral Fracture: Case Report

Hardware removal in a healed intertrochanteric fracture in elderly, which is not a routine procedure, should be needed in the case of irritable hardware. The reports of refracture after hardware removal can be seen as sparse in current literature, which are focused to secondary femoral neck fracture after removal of the lag screw or blade. We experienced a case of the intertrochanteric refracture and varus collapse after the PFNA removal in a healed fracture, treated with valgus trochanteric osteotomy and angled blade plate fixation. The PFNA is an innovative device for the treatment of the trochanteric fracture; however, the complications after removal never end. Therefore, the removal from healed fracture in elderly who have osteoporosis should not be recommended unless intractable pain had persisted.

Mechanical Analysis after Proximal Femoral Reinforcement with Polymethylmethacrylate in Alternated Double Holes

Objective  To evaluate, through a biomechanical assay, the maximum load, energy, and displacement necessary for the occurrence of fractures in synthetic models of femurs after the removal of cannulated screws and the performance of a reinforcement technique with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) in different combined positions. Methods  In total, 25 synthetic bones were used, and they were divided into 4 groups: the control group (CG), with 10 models without perforation, and the test groups (A, B and C), with 5 models each. The test groups were fixed with cannulated screws using the Asnis technique, and they had the synthesis removed, and two of the holes formed by the reinforcement technique with PMMA were filled. The biomechanical analysis was performed simulating a fall on the large trochanter using a servo-hydraulic machine. Results  All specimens of the CG and of groups A, B and C presented basal-cervical fracture of the femoral neck, except for a single model in group B, which presented a longitudinal fracture. An average of 5.4 mL of PMMA were used to reinforce the groups with filling. According to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey multiple comparison test, at the level of 5%, we observed that the CG presented significant differences in relation to groups A and C in the following parameters: maximum load, energy up to the fracture, and displacement. Conclusion  We observed that groups A and C, when compared to the CG, showed significant differences in the observation of displacement, maximum load, and energy until the fracture.

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.

A rare complication of ipsilateral femoral neck fracture after removal of the long Gamma nail in a healed intertrochanteric fracture

Ipsilateral femoral neck fracture after hardware removal in healed trochanteric fracture is a rare complication. We reported a case of a 79-year-old woman who had undergone open reduction and internal fixation for her left intertrochanteric fracture with a long Gamma nail about 1 year ago. She asked for implants removal due to local irritation. However, 5 days after implants removal, left subcapital femoral neck fracture occurred. Removal of implants under elective indications could lead to high complication rate. Orthopedic surgeons should perform the removal of hardware in healed intertrochanteric fracture for very selected cases.

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.

Femoral neck fractures after removal of hardware in healed trochanteric fractures

INTRODUCTION

Hardware removal in healed trochanteric fractures (TF) in the absence of infection or significant mechanical complications is rarely indicated. However, in patients with persistent pain, prominent material and discomfort in the activities of daily living, the implant is eventually removed. Publications of ipsilateral femoral neck fracture after removal of implants from healed trochanteric fractures (FNFARIHTF) just because of pain or discomfort are rare. The purpose of this systematic review of the literature is to report on the eventual risk factors, the mechanisms, the clinical presentation, and frequency, and to pay special emphasis in their prevention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines with no language restriction. Case reports of FNFARIHTF and series of TF with cases of FNFARIHTF due to pain or discomfort published between inception of journals to December 2016 were eligible for inclusion. Relevant information was divided in two parts. Part I included the analysis of cases of FNFARIHTF, with the objective of establishing the eventual risk factors, mechanisms and pathoanatomy, clinical presentation and diagnosis, treatment and prevention. Part II analyzed series of TF which included cases of FNFARIHTF for assessing the incidence of femoral neck fractures in this condition.

RESULTS

Overall 24 publications with 45 cases of FNFARIHTF met the inclusion criteria. We found that the only prevalent factors for FNFARIHTF were: 1) preexisisting systemic osteoporosis, as most patients were older and elder females, with lower bone mineral density and bone mass; 2) local osteoporosis as a result of preloading by the fixation device in the femoral neck, leading to stress protection, reducing the strain at the neck, and increasing bone loss and weakness; and 3) the removal of hardware from the femoral neck, with reduction of the failure strength of the neck. The femoral neck fractures were spontaneous, i.e. not related to trauma or fall, in 87.5% of the cases, mostly subcapital, and with no prevalence between displaced and undisplaced fractures. The clinical presentation was that of a spontaneous fracture, and most of the patients consulted because of hip pain and presented in the emergency room walking by themselves which led to delayed diagnosis in several instances. Radiological diagnosis was mostly with radiographs, though in some cases CT scans or MRI were necessary. The overall median incidence of this complication was 14.5% after hardware removal because of pain or discomfort in healed trochanteric fractures.

CONCLUSION

The risk factors for FNFARIHTF seem to be preexisisting systemic osteoporosis, local osteoporosis as a result of preloading by the fixation device in the femoral neck, and the removal of hardware from the femoral neck, with reduction of the strength of the neck. The clinical presentation may be obscure as most of the patients complain of hip pain of some days or weeks, and arrive in the hospital walking. Therefore, the attending physician should be alert in order to request the appropriate radiological investigation and if this is not clear CT scan or MRI should be done in order to diagnose promptly these "spontaneous" fractures. Treatment should be replacement surgery in most cases; however, there is some place for internal fixation especially in undisplaced fractures or younger patients. The occurrence of the femoral neck fracture after hardware removal may be prevented with re-osteosynthesis and the use of bone chips or bone substitutes. Finally, the relatively high incidence of this complication should alert orthopaedic surgeons to reduce the removal of hardware in healed trochanteric fractures to very selected cases.

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

Objective

To evaluate, through biomechanical testing, the resistance to and energy required for the occurrence of proximal femoral fracture in synthetic bone after removal of a proximal femoral nail model (PFN), comparing the results obtained with a reinforcement technique using polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA).

Methods

Fifteen synthetic bones were used: five units for the control group (CG), five for the test group without reinforcement (TGNR), and five for the test group with reinforcement (TGR). The biomechanical analysis was performed simulating a fall on the trochanter using a servo-hydraulic machine. In the GC, the assay was performed with the PFN intact. In the TGNR and TGR groups, a model of PFN was introduced and the tests were performed in the TGNR, after simple removal of the synthesis material, and in the TGR, after removal of the same PFN model and filling of the cavity in the femoral neck with PMMA.

Results

All groups presented a basicervical fracture. The CG presented a mean of 1427.39 Newtons (N) of maximum load and 10.14 Joules (J) of energy for the occurrence of the fracture. The TGNR and TGR presented 892.14 N and 1477.80 N of maximum load, and 6.71 J and 11.99 J of energy, respectively. According to the Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA, there was a significant difference in the maximum load (p = 0.009) and energy (p = 0.007) between these groups.

Conclusion

The simple removal of a PFN in synthetic bone showed a significant reduction of the maximum load and energy for the occurrence of fracture, which were re-established with a reinforcement technique using PMMA.