A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Biomechanical evaluation of fracture fixation constructs using a variable-angle locked periprosthetic femur plate system. | LitMetric

Background: In the United States there are more than 230,000 total hip replacements annually, and periprosthetic femoral fractures occur in 0.1-4.5% of those patients. The majority of these fractures occur at the tip of the stem (Vancouver type B1). The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanically stability and strength of three fixation constructs and identify the most desirable construct.

Methods: Fifteen medium adult synthetic femurs were implanted with a hip prosthesis and were osteotomized in an oblique plane at the level of the implant tip to simulate a Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic fracture. Fractures were fixed with a non-contact bridging periprosthetic proximal femur plate (Zimmer Inc., Warsaw, IN). Three proximal fixation methods were used: Group 1, bicortical screws; Group 2, unicortical screws and one cerclage cable; and Group 3, three cerclage cables. Distally, all groups had bicortical screws. Biomechanical testing was performed using an axial-torsional testing machine in three different loading modalities (axial compression, lateral bending, and torsional/sagittal bending), next in axial cyclic loading to 10,000 cycles, again in the three loading modalities, and finally to failure in torsional/sagittal bending.

Results: Group 1 had significantly greater load to failure and was significantly stiffer in torsional/sagittal bending than Groups 2 and 3. After cyclic loading, Group 2 had significantly greater axial stiffness than Groups 1 and 3. There was no difference between the three groups in lateral bending stiffness. The average energy absorbed during cyclic loading was significantly lower in Group 2 than in Groups 1 and 3.

Conclusions: Bicortical screw placement achieved the highest load to failure and the highest torsional/sagittal bending stiffness. Additional unicortical screws improved axial stiffness when using cable fixation. Lateral bending was not influenced by differences in proximal fixation.

Clinical Relevance: To treat periprosthetic fractures, bicortical screw placement should be attempted to maximize load to failure and torsional/sagittal bending stiffness.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.02.038DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

torsional/sagittal bending
16
lateral bending
12
cyclic loading
12
load failure
12
bending stiffness
12
fixation constructs
8
femur plate
8
fractures occur
8
vancouver type
8
bicortical screws
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!