» Articles » PMID: 15213501

A Laboratory Model to Evaluate Cutout Resistance of Implants for Pertrochanteric Fracture Fixation

Overview
Journal J Orthop Trauma
Date 2004 Jun 24
PMID 15213501
Citations 63
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To establish a laboratory model of implant cutout, which can evaluate the effect of implant design on cutout resistance in a clinically realistic "worst case" scenario.

Setting: Orthopaedic biomechanics laboratory.

Design: Implant cutout was simulated in an unstable pertrochanteric fracture model, which accounted for dynamic loading, osteoporotic bone, and a defined implant offset. For model characterization, lag screw cutout was simulated in human cadaveric specimens and in polyurethane foam surrogates. Subsequently, foam surrogates were used to determine differences in cutout resistance between 2 common lag screws (dynamic hip screw, Gamma) and 2 novel blade-type implant designs (dynamic helical hip system, trochanteric fixation nail).

Main Outcome Measures: Implant migration was continuously recorded with a spatial motion tracking system as a function of the applied loading cycles. In addition, the total number of loading cycles to cutout failure was determined for specific load amplitudes.

Results: Implant migration in polyurethane surrogates closely correlated with that in cadaveric specimens, but yielded higher reproducibility and consistent cutout failure. The cutout model was able to delineate significant differences in cutout resistance between specific implant designs. At any of 4 load amplitudes (0.8 kN, 1.0 kN, 1.2 kN, 1.4 kN) dynamic hip screw lag screws failed earliest. The gamma nail lag screw could sustain significantly more loading cycles than the dynamic hip screw. Of all implants, trochanteric fixation nail implants demonstrated the highest cutout resistance.

Conclusions: Implant design can significantly affect the fixation strength and cutout resistance of implants for pertrochanteric fracture fixation. The novel cutout model can predict differences in cutout resistance between distinct implant designs.

Citing Articles

Torsional stability of fixation methods in basicervical femoral neck fractures: a biomechanical study.

Mahaisavariya C, Jitprapaikulsarn S, Mahaisavariya B, Chantarapanich N J Orthop Surg Res. 2024; 19(1):371.

PMID: 38909252 PMC: 11193902. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-04842-5.


The Effect of Bone Quality on Treatment of Intertrochanteric Fractures with Helical Blade Versus Lag Screw Fixation in Cephalomedulary Nails.

Chong A, Schommer J, Shearer J, Timmer T, Brown A Kans J Med. 2023; 16:207-213.

PMID: 37791033 PMC: 10544885. DOI: 10.17161/kjm.vol16.20105.


Which head element is more effective for cement augmentation of TFNA? Helical blade versus lag screw.

Mitsuzawa S, Nakamata T, Mitamura S, Yasuda T, Matsuda S BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023; 24(1):544.

PMID: 37400808 PMC: 10316549. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06671-9.


Intramedullary Femur Nailing in Intertrochanteric Fractures: Postoperatively Do Helical Blades Migrate More Than Lag Screws? A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Upadhayay A, Mittal S, Kumar A, Trikha V Indian J Orthop. 2023; 57(7):1054-1062.

PMID: 37384001 PMC: 10293128. DOI: 10.1007/s43465-023-00892-9.


Medial migration of the helical blade with penetration into the acetabulum: a rare complication using the TFNA nail.

Deichsel A, Katthagen J, Raschke M, Riesenbeck O Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2023; 34(1):113-117.

PMID: 37351646 PMC: 10771584. DOI: 10.1007/s00590-023-03615-w.