Krischak G D, Augat P, Beck A, Arand M, Baier B, Blakytny R, Gebhard F, Claes L
Centre of Surgery, Clinic for Traumatology, Hand, Plastic, and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Ulm, Steinhoevelstrasse 9, 89075 Ulm, Germany.
Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2007 Dec;22(10):1112-8. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.07.016. Epub 2007 Sep 27.
Our objective was to determine the biomechanical primary stability of two different side plate fixation devices in an unstable intertrochanteric cadaver model: the Sliding Hip Screw with an additional derotation screw was compared with the Percutaneous Compression Plate.
Eight pairs of human cadaver femurs were tested for comparison of the primary stability of the two implants in two modes: (a) cyclic loading up to 200 N, 400 N, 600 N, 800 N, and 1000 N, respectively. In vitro combined axial and bending loads were applied. Angular displacements of the proximal head fragment during loading were recorded in rotational, varus-valgus, and anterior-posterior directions. (b) The load to failure was determined.
Specimens fixed with the Percutaneous Compression Plate showed higher displacements in the varus during loading up to 200 N (P=0.033), and 400 N (P=0.001), compared to the Sliding Hip Screw. A similar tendency was observed for higher loads. The Percutaneous Compression Plate allowed more external rotation of the proximal fragment only at loads up to 800 N (P=0.019). No statistical difference could be found for the slight migrations in the posterior direction. Load to failure also revealed no statistical difference between the two implants.
The Percutaneous Compression Plate as a double-axis fixation device with a sliding capability allows higher displacements in the varus direction and also in external rotation at 800 N loading compared to the Sliding Hip Screw as a single-axis fixation device combined with an additional derotation screw. While both implants are successful used in clinical practice, this should be considered in treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures with inferior comminution in osteoporotic patients.
我们的目的是在不稳定的转子间尸体模型中确定两种不同侧板固定装置的生物力学初始稳定性:将带附加抗旋螺钉的滑动髋螺钉与经皮加压钢板进行比较。
测试八对人体尸体股骨,以比较两种植入物在两种模式下的初始稳定性:(a) 分别进行高达200 N、400 N、600 N、800 N和1000 N的循环加载。施加体外轴向和弯曲联合载荷。记录加载过程中近端头部骨折块在旋转、内翻-外翻和前后方向上的角位移。(b) 确定失效载荷。
与滑动髋螺钉相比,经皮加压钢板固定的标本在高达200 N(P = 0.033)和400 N(P = 0.001)的加载过程中内翻位移更大。在更高载荷下也观察到类似趋势。经皮加压钢板仅在高达800 N的载荷下允许近端骨折块有更多的外旋(P = 0.019)。在向后方向上的轻微移位未发现统计学差异。两种植入物的失效载荷也未发现统计学差异。
与作为单轴固定装置并带有附加抗旋螺钉的滑动髋螺钉相比,经皮加压钢板作为具有滑动能力的双轴固定装置,在800 N加载时在内翻方向以及外旋方面允许更大的位移。虽然两种植入物在临床实践中都成功使用,但对于骨质疏松患者伴有下极粉碎的不稳定转子间骨折的治疗应考虑这一点。