Takemoto Richelle C, Lekic Nikola, Schwarzkopf Ran, Kummer Frederick J, Egol Kenneth A
Musculoskeletal Research Center at the NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, 301 E 17th St 1402, New York, NY, 10003, USA.
J Orthop Sci. 2014 Jan;19(1):112-9. doi: 10.1007/s00776-013-0493-z. Epub 2013 Nov 19.
To compare lag-screw sliding characteristics and fixation stability of two cephalomedullary nails (CMN) with different lag-screw designs (solid and telescopic), we conducted a biomechanical study and an analysis of clinical results.
Six pairs of cadaver femurs with simulated intertrochanteric fractures were randomly assigned to one of two CMN fixations. Femur constructs were statically then cyclically loaded on an MTS machine. Lag-screw sliding and inferior and lateral femoral head displacements were measured, following which failure strength of the construct was determined. Forty-five patients with intertrochanteric fractures treated with these CMN were identified. Medical records and radiographs were reviewed and analyzed using Fisher's exact test and Student's t test to determine lag-screw sliding.
No difference was seen with cycling in inferior femoral head displacement between the two screw designs. The solid screw had an average inferior head displacement of 1.75 mm compared with 1.59 mm for the telescoping screw (p = 0.772). The solid lag screws slid an average of 2.79 mm lateral from the nail, whereas the telescoping screws slid an average of 0.27 mm (p = 0.003). In our clinical review, the average lateral sliding of the telescoping screw was 0.5 mm and of the solid screw was 3.7 mm (p < 0.001). Despite differences in lateral sliding, there were no reoperations for prominent or painful hardware in either group.
Both designs are acceptable devices for stabilization of intertrochanteric fractures. Clinical and biomechanical data demonstrate greater lateral sliding in the solid lag-screw group, making for greater potential for lateral-sided hip pain in CMNs with solid lag screws as opposed to telescoping lag screws.
为比较两种具有不同拉力螺钉设计(实心和可伸缩)的股骨近端髓内钉(CMN)的拉力螺钉滑动特性和固定稳定性,我们进行了一项生物力学研究和临床结果分析。
将六对模拟股骨转子间骨折的尸体股骨随机分配至两种CMN固定方式之一。股骨结构先进行静态加载,然后在MTS机器上进行循环加载。测量拉力螺钉的滑动以及股骨头的下向和侧向位移,随后确定结构的破坏强度。确定了45例接受这些CMN治疗的股骨转子间骨折患者。回顾并分析病历和X线片,采用Fisher精确检验和Student t检验来确定拉力螺钉的滑动情况。
两种螺钉设计在股骨头下向位移的循环加载中未观察到差异。实心螺钉的股骨头平均下向位移为1.75 mm,相比之下,可伸缩螺钉为1.59 mm(p = 0.772)。实心拉力螺钉平均从髓内钉侧向滑动2.79 mm,而可伸缩螺钉平均滑动0.27 mm(p = 0.003)。在我们的临床回顾中,可伸缩螺钉的平均侧向滑动为0.5 mm,实心螺钉为3.7 mm(p < 0.001)。尽管侧向滑动存在差异,但两组均未因内固定物突出或疼痛而进行再次手术。
两种设计都是用于稳定股骨转子间骨折的可接受装置。临床和生物力学数据表明,实心拉力螺钉组的侧向滑动更大,这使得与可伸缩拉力螺钉相比,使用实心拉力螺钉的CMN导致髋部外侧疼痛的可能性更大。