Markel M D, Gottsauner-Wolf F, Rock M G, Frassica F J, Chao E Y
Department of Orthopedics, Mayo Clinic/Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota 55905.
J Orthop Res. 1993 May;11(3):339-49. doi: 10.1002/jor.1100110305.
Six techniques of proximal femoral replacement were compared in vitro with the use of compression, bending, and torsional testing in a canine model. One femur of each pair was osteotomized in the midshaft region, and the proximal portion was replaced with one of six techniques. These techniques included (a) a segmental proximal femoral endoprosthesis cemented into the distal femur with no allograft (technique ES); (b) a long-stem endoprosthesis press-fit into an allograft and cemented into the distal femur with a transverse osteotomy (technique AT); (c) the same construct as technique AT, but with a step-cut at the osteotomy (technique AS); (d) a long-stem endoprosthesis interlocked into an allograft and cemented into the distal femur with a transverse osteotomy (technique AI); (e) a short-stem endoprosthesis cemented into an allograft combined with one plate laterally stabilizing the allograft to the distal femur with a transverse osteotomy (technique AP1); and (f) the same construct as technique AP1, but with an additional plate cranially (technique AP2). A long-stem endoprosthesis cemented into the contralateral intact femur served as the control. Techniques that involved a long-stem endoprosthesis and cementing distally (AT, AS, and AI) were more resistant in torsion than the plated replacement techniques (AP1 and AP2). The segmental replacement construct (ES) was equal to or stronger than all other techniques under each testing condition. In torsion, the addition of a step-cut (AS) significantly lowered angular displacement of the reconstruction when compared with the reconstruction with a transverse osteotomy (AT) (p < 0.05). Bones with one-plate fixation (AP1) were significantly weaker in torsional stiffness and maximum torque and in mediolateral bending (p < 0.05) than all other techniques. The addition of a second plate (AP2) increased the mechanical properties of the construct so that it was greater than the one-plate method and was equal to (bending and compression) or still weaker (torsion) than the other techniques. The results indicate that segmental replacement methods and allograft/endoprosthetic composites that involve long-stem endoprostheses fixed with cement are mechanically superior to methods that involve short-stem endoprostheses with single or double plating at the osteotomy sites.
在犬类模型中,使用压缩、弯曲和扭转测试对六种股骨近端置换技术进行了体外比较。每对股骨中的一根在骨干中部区域进行截骨,近端部分用六种技术之一进行置换。这些技术包括:(a) 一种节段性股骨近端假体,用骨水泥固定在股骨远端,不使用同种异体骨(ES技术);(b) 一种长柄假体压配入同种异体骨,并通过横向截骨用骨水泥固定在股骨远端(AT技术);(c) 与AT技术相同的结构,但在截骨处有阶梯状切口(AS技术);(d) 一种长柄假体锁定在同种异体骨中,并通过横向截骨用骨水泥固定在股骨远端(AI技术);(e) 一种短柄假体用骨水泥固定在同种异体骨中,并结合一块钢板,通过横向截骨将同种异体骨横向稳定在股骨远端(AP1技术);(f) 与AP1技术相同的结构,但在头侧增加一块钢板(AP2技术)。将用骨水泥固定在对侧完整股骨中的长柄假体作为对照。涉及长柄假体并在远端用骨水泥固定的技术(AT、AS和AI)在扭转方面比钢板置换技术(AP1和AP2)更具抵抗力。在每种测试条件下,节段性置换结构(ES)等于或强于所有其他技术。在扭转方面,与采用横向截骨的重建(AT)相比,增加阶梯状切口(AS)显著降低了重建的角位移(p < 0.05)。采用单钢板固定的骨头(AP1)在扭转刚度、最大扭矩和内外侧弯曲方面(p < 0.05)明显弱于所有其他技术。增加第二块钢板(AP2)提高了结构的力学性能,使其大于单钢板方法,在弯曲和压缩方面等于(弯曲和压缩)或仍然弱于(扭转)其他技术。结果表明,节段性置换方法以及涉及用骨水泥固定长柄假体的同种异体骨/假体复合材料在力学上优于在截骨部位采用单钢板或双钢板的短柄假体方法。