Broekhuizen A H, Boxma H, van der Meulen P A, Snijders C J
Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam.
Injury. 1990 May;21(3):145-51. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(90)90083-7.
Whether or not external fixation should be applied to the femur, and on what grounds, will depend upon a variety of factors. It is rarely considered to be the treatment of first choice. External fixation can, however, be indicated in certain circumstances. Looking for optimal rigidity in such cases we tested and compared the stability of 14 different femoral external fixators in an experimental model. It was found that the weight of the different frames varied from 400 to 2000 g. The comparative stability also varied widely. Movements of between 1 mm and 4 cm and rotations varying from almost 0 degrees to 16 degrees were measured at the (experimental) fracture site, based upon the geometry of an adult patient. In view of this finding primary bone-healing would not be expected to occur, since it demands more stability than external femoral fixation can offer. A relatively simple two-dimensional (unilateral) frame can be as rigid as a three-dimensional one, in response to all but transverse loading.
是否应将外固定应用于股骨以及基于何种理由，将取决于多种因素。它很少被视为首选治疗方法。然而，在某些情况下外固定是适用的。为了在这些情况下寻找最佳刚度，我们在一个实验模型中测试并比较了14种不同股骨外固定器的稳定性。结果发现，不同框架的重量在400克至2000克之间变化。比较稳定性也有很大差异。根据成年患者的几何形状，在（实验性）骨折部位测量到的位移在1毫米至4厘米之间，旋转角度从几乎0度到16度不等。鉴于这一发现，预计不会发生一期骨愈合，因为它需要比股骨外固定所能提供的更高的稳定性。除横向载荷外，一个相对简单的二维（单侧）框架可以与三维框架一样坚固。
