Suppr超能文献

中央共线入钉重建钉预防股骨颈骨折的生物力学评估。

Biomechanical evaluation of a central collinear entry reconstruction nail for femoral neck fracture prophylaxis.

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

出版信息

Injury. 2024 Aug;55(8):111640. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2024.111640. Epub 2024 May 29.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Reconstruction nails are commonly used to treat proximal femur fractures, with cephalic screw placement for femoral neck "prophylaxis" becoming standard practice. These implants are traditionally introduced through piriformis fossa (PF) or greater trochanter (GT) entry portals. A third "central collinear" (CC) portal has been proposed that allows entry along the femoral anatomic axis and central placement of cephalic screws. The present study aimed to quantify and compare the CC portal femoral neck strength with the two traditional (PF and GT) entry portals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighteen cadaveric femur specimens (nine matched pairs) were divided into three groups using a balanced incomplete block design to control for variations in age and sex: (1) GT, (2) CC, and (3) PF entry points. Specimens and implants were cut to a standard length and instrumented with straight or valgus bend nails of appropriate laterality and two cephalic screws. Specimens were mounted on a custom jig replicating load distribution along the mechanical axis. A 100 N compressive preload was applied to the femoral head, followed by loading to failure at a rate of 10 mm/s until fracture, indicated by 30 % drop in axial force.

RESULTS

THE THREE ENTRY POINTS DID NOT DIFFER IN LOAD-TO-FAILURE: GT (6378.7 ± 1494.9 N), P (6912.4 ± 4924.1 N) and CC (7044.2 ± 2911.4 N) (P = 0.948) or maximum displacement, stiffness, and toughness. Most PF specimens failed at the basicervical neck, whereas most GT specimens failed at the subcapital neck; these differences were not significant. CC specimens failed evenly split between subcapital and basicervical.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant difference in femoral neck load-to-failure after placement of a reconstruction nail through a CC entry portal when compared to both GT and PF entry. Clinically, this suggests the CC entry portal is a viable option when clinical considerations warrant its use.

摘要

简介

重建钉通常用于治疗股骨近端骨折,采用头钉预防股骨颈“骨折”已成为标准做法。这些植入物传统上通过梨状肌窝(PF)或大转子(GT)入口进入。已经提出了第三个“中央共线”(CC)入口,允许沿股骨解剖轴进入并将头钉中央放置。本研究旨在量化和比较 CC 入路股骨干颈强度与两种传统(PF 和 GT)入路。

材料和方法

使用平衡不完全块设计将 18 个尸体股骨标本(9 对匹配)分为三组,以控制年龄和性别差异:(1)GT,(2)CC 和(3)PF 入口点。标本和植入物被切割至标准长度,并使用适当的侧倾直或外翻弯曲钉和两个头钉进行仪器化。标本安装在一个定制夹具上,模拟沿着机械轴的力分布。在股骨头施加 100 N 的压缩预载,然后以 10 mm/s 的速度加载至失效,直到轴向力下降 30%表明发生骨折。

结果

三个入口点在失效负载方面没有差异:GT(6378.7 ± 1494.9 N)、PF(6912.4 ± 4924.1 N)和 CC(7044.2 ± 2911.4 N)(P = 0.948)或最大位移、刚度和韧性。大多数 PF 标本在颈骨干处失效,而大多数 GT 标本在基底颈处失效;这些差异不显著。CC 标本在基底颈和颈骨干之间均匀失效。

结论

与 GT 和 PF 入路相比,通过 CC 入路放置重建钉后,股骨干颈的失效负载没有显著差异。临床上,这表明 CC 入路是一种可行的选择,当临床考虑需要使用时。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验