Lever James P, Zdero Rad, Nousiainen Markku T, Waddell James P, Schemitsch Emil H
Martin Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Shuter Wing (Room 5-066), St, Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B-1W8, Canada.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2010 Jul 23;5:45. doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-5-45.
A variety of techniques are available for fixation of femoral shaft fractures following total hip arthroplasty. The optimal surgical repair method still remains a point of controversy in the literature. However, few studies have quantified the performance of such repair constructs. This study biomechanically examined 3 different screw-plate and cable-plate systems for fixation of periprosthetic femoral fractures near the tip of a total hip arthroplasty.
Twelve pairs of human cadaveric femurs were utilized. Each left femur was prepared for the cemented insertion of the femoral component of a total hip implant. Femoral fractures were created in the femurs and subsequently repaired with Construct A (Zimmer Cable Ready System), Construct B (AO Cable-Plate System), or Construct C (Dall-Miles Cable Grip System). Right femora served as matched intact controls. Axial, torsional, and four-point bending tests were performed to obtain stiffness values.
All repair systems showed 3.08 to 5.33 times greater axial stiffness over intact control specimens. Four-point normalized bending (0.69 to 0.85) and normalized torsional (0.55 to 0.69) stiffnesses were lower than intact controls for most comparisons. Screw-plates provided either greater or equal stiffness compared to cable-plates in almost all cases. There were no statistical differences between plating systems A, B, or C when compared to each other (p > 0.05).
Screw-plate systems provide more optimal mechanical stability than cable-plate systems for periprosthetic femur fractures near the tip of a total hip arthroplasty.
全髋关节置换术后股骨干骨折的固定有多种技术。最佳手术修复方法在文献中仍是一个有争议的问题。然而,很少有研究对这种修复结构的性能进行量化。本研究通过生物力学方法检测了3种不同的螺钉钢板和缆索钢板系统,用于固定全髋关节置换术尖端附近的假体周围股骨骨折。
使用12对人体尸体股骨。每根左侧股骨均准备好用于骨水泥固定全髋关节植入物的股骨组件。在股骨上制造骨折,随后用A组(Zimmer缆索准备系统)、B组(AO缆索钢板系统)或C组(Dall-Miles缆索握持系统)进行修复。右侧股骨作为匹配的完整对照。进行轴向、扭转和四点弯曲试验以获得刚度值。
所有修复系统的轴向刚度均比完整对照标本大3.08至5.33倍。在大多数比较中,四点归一化弯曲(0.69至0.85)和归一化扭转(0.55至0.69)刚度低于完整对照。在几乎所有情况下,螺钉钢板提供的刚度大于或等于缆索钢板。A、B或C组钢板系统之间相互比较时无统计学差异(p>0.05)。
对于全髋关节置换术尖端附近的假体周围股骨骨折,螺钉钢板系统比缆索钢板系统提供更优的机械稳定性。