Department of Surgery, University of Zaragoza. Zaragoza, Spain, Zaragoza, Spain; Aragón Health Research Institute. Zaragoza, Spain; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Lozano Blesa University Hospital.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Zaragoza. Zaragoza, Spain; Aragón Institute for Engineering Research. Zaragoza, Spain.
Injury. 2021 Jul;52 Suppl 4:S61-S70. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2021.02.062. Epub 2021 Feb 25.
Intramedullary nailing is generally accepted as the first choice for the treatment of diaphyseal fractures of femur and tibia, with a gradual incease in the use of unreamed nails. Different studies during last years show controversial outcomes. Some authors strongly favor unreamed nailing, but most of the authors conclude that reamed nailing have proved to be more successful.
This study simulates unreamed intramedullary nailing of four femoral and three tibial fracture types by means of Finite Element (FE) models, at early postoperative stages with a fraction of physiological loads, in order to determine whether sufficient stability is achieved, and if the extent of movements and strains at the fracture site may preclude proper consolidation.
The behavior observed in the different fracture models is very diverse. In the new biomechanical situation, loads are only transmitted through the intramedullary nail. Mean relative displacement values of fractures in the femoral bone range from 0.30 mm to 0.82 mm, depending on the fracture type. Mean relative displacement values of the tibial fractures lie between 0.18 and 0.62 mm, depending on the type of fracture. Concerning mean strains, for femoral fractures the maximum strains ranged between 12.7% and 42.3%. For tibial fractures the maximum strains ranged between 10.9% and 40.8%.
The results showed that unreamed nailing provides a very limited mechanical stability, taking into account that analyzed fracture patterns correspond to simple fracture without comminution. Therefore, unreamed nailing is not a correct indication in femoral fractures and should be an exceptional indication in open tibial fractures produced by high-energy mechanism.
髓内钉通常被认为是治疗股骨干和胫骨骨干骨折的首选方法,非扩髓髓内钉的使用逐渐增加。近年来的不同研究结果存在争议。一些作者强烈赞成非扩髓髓内钉,但大多数作者得出的结论是扩髓髓内钉更成功。
本研究通过有限元(FE)模型模拟了四种股骨和三种胫骨骨折类型的非扩髓髓内钉固定,在术后早期,承受部分生理负荷,以确定是否达到足够的稳定性,以及骨折部位的活动和应变程度是否可能妨碍适当的愈合。
不同骨折模型的观察到的行为差异很大。在新的生物力学环境下,负荷仅通过髓内钉传递。股骨骨折的平均相对位移值范围为 0.30 毫米至 0.82 毫米,具体取决于骨折类型。胫骨骨折的平均相对位移值介于 0.18 毫米至 0.62 毫米之间,取决于骨折类型。关于平均应变,股骨骨折的最大应变值在 12.7%至 42.3%之间。胫骨骨折的最大应变值在 10.9%至 40.8%之间。
结果表明,非扩髓髓内钉提供的机械稳定性非常有限,考虑到分析的骨折模式对应于无粉碎的简单骨折。因此,非扩髓髓内钉不是股骨干骨折的正确适应证,对于高能量机制引起的开放性胫骨骨折,应作为例外适应证。