A biomechanical comparison of various methods of stabilization of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur

Subtrochanteric femoral fractures with and without bony contact were simulated in cadaver specimens, fixed with one of seven different types of intramedullary or plate implants, and tested biomechanically. The implants used were Enders pins, Zickel nail, compression hip screw, AO angled blade plate,...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of orthopaedic research 1984, Vol.2 (3), p.297-305
Hauptverfasser: Tencer, A. F., Johnson, K. D., Johnston, D. W. C., Gill, K.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 305
container_issue 3
container_start_page 297
container_title Journal of orthopaedic research
container_volume 2
creator Tencer, A. F.
Johnson, K. D.
Johnston, D. W. C.
Gill, K.
description Subtrochanteric femoral fractures with and without bony contact were simulated in cadaver specimens, fixed with one of seven different types of intramedullary or plate implants, and tested biomechanically. The implants used were Enders pins, Zickel nail, compression hip screw, AO angled blade plate, and intramedullary locked nail systems of the Klemm‐Schellman, Brooker‐Wills, and Grosse‐Kempf types. Femur‐implant constructs using intramedullary devices were a maximum of 5% as stiff in torsion as intact cadaveric femora tested in the same manner, while plate‐fixed fractures were nearly 50% as stiff. In bending, all devices except the Enders pins were ∼80% as stiff as intact femora. Loss of bony contact at the fracture site had little effect on stiffness except in the case of the keyless compression hip screw, where the screw rotated freely in the barrel. In combined bending and compression to failure, a test to simulate forces due to body weight, the intramedullary locked rods were found to support between 300 and 400% of body weight while the plate systems failed at loads between 100 and 200% of body weight.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/jor.1100020312
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_81308487</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>81308487</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4172-6d7264c34833c3d8309b4f3ac6b419bd8d3ed85b37bbd478942a3e90bac475683</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1PHCEYh0mjsavttbcmczDeZuVrgDkao6tmo0k_YtMLAYbJYmeWFRi__npZZ7OmJ0-84X1-L_AAwDcEpwhCfHznwxTlCmJIEP4EJqiqaFlh_mcHTCAnrISYsc9gP8a7THGExR7YY7RGAsMJWJwU2vnemoVaOqO6wvh-pYKLfln4tnjIpR9i0du08E1cb8WktOvci0puZOKgU_DrAckGZ4o2KJOGYN_otLBFa_shfAG7reqi_bpZD8Dv87Nfpxfl_GZ2eXoyLw1FHJes4ZhRQ6ggxJBGEFhr2hJlmKao1o1oiG1EpQnXuqFc1BQrYmuolaG8YoIcgKNx7ir4-8HGJHsXje06tbT5JVIgAgUVPIPTETTBxxhsK1fB9So8SwTlWq3MauW72hz4vpk86N42W3zjMvcPN30Vs8msYWlc3GJ1_gdKWcbqEXt0nX3-4FB5dfPjvyuUY9bFZJ-2WRX-ScYJr-Tt9Uz-vb6d058MyRl5BfzZolg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>81308487</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A biomechanical comparison of various methods of stabilization of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Tencer, A. F. ; Johnson, K. D. ; Johnston, D. W. C. ; Gill, K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Tencer, A. F. ; Johnson, K. D. ; Johnston, D. W. C. ; Gill, K.</creatorcontrib><description>Subtrochanteric femoral fractures with and without bony contact were simulated in cadaver specimens, fixed with one of seven different types of intramedullary or plate implants, and tested biomechanically. The implants used were Enders pins, Zickel nail, compression hip screw, AO angled blade plate, and intramedullary locked nail systems of the Klemm‐Schellman, Brooker‐Wills, and Grosse‐Kempf types. Femur‐implant constructs using intramedullary devices were a maximum of 5% as stiff in torsion as intact cadaveric femora tested in the same manner, while plate‐fixed fractures were nearly 50% as stiff. In bending, all devices except the Enders pins were ∼80% as stiff as intact femora. Loss of bony contact at the fracture site had little effect on stiffness except in the case of the keyless compression hip screw, where the screw rotated freely in the barrel. In combined bending and compression to failure, a test to simulate forces due to body weight, the intramedullary locked rods were found to support between 300 and 400% of body weight while the plate systems failed at loads between 100 and 200% of body weight.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0736-0266</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1554-527X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jor.1100020312</identifier><identifier>PMID: 6491820</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JOREDR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Bone Nails ; Bone Plates ; Cadaver ; Femoral Fractures - surgery ; Fracture Fixation, Internal - instrumentation ; Fracture Fixation, Internal - methods ; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - instrumentation ; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods ; Humans ; Implant rigidity comparison ; Injuries of the limb. Injuries of the spine ; Medical sciences ; Subtrochanteric femoral fracture ; Traumas. Diseases due to physical agents</subject><ispartof>Journal of orthopaedic research, 1984, Vol.2 (3), p.297-305</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 1984 Orthopaedic Research Society</rights><rights>1985 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4172-6d7264c34833c3d8309b4f3ac6b419bd8d3ed85b37bbd478942a3e90bac475683</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4172-6d7264c34833c3d8309b4f3ac6b419bd8d3ed85b37bbd478942a3e90bac475683</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjor.1100020312$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjor.1100020312$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,4024,27923,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=9026446$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6491820$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tencer, A. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, K. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnston, D. W. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gill, K.</creatorcontrib><title>A biomechanical comparison of various methods of stabilization of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur</title><title>Journal of orthopaedic research</title><addtitle>J. Orthop. Res</addtitle><description>Subtrochanteric femoral fractures with and without bony contact were simulated in cadaver specimens, fixed with one of seven different types of intramedullary or plate implants, and tested biomechanically. The implants used were Enders pins, Zickel nail, compression hip screw, AO angled blade plate, and intramedullary locked nail systems of the Klemm‐Schellman, Brooker‐Wills, and Grosse‐Kempf types. Femur‐implant constructs using intramedullary devices were a maximum of 5% as stiff in torsion as intact cadaveric femora tested in the same manner, while plate‐fixed fractures were nearly 50% as stiff. In bending, all devices except the Enders pins were ∼80% as stiff as intact femora. Loss of bony contact at the fracture site had little effect on stiffness except in the case of the keyless compression hip screw, where the screw rotated freely in the barrel. In combined bending and compression to failure, a test to simulate forces due to body weight, the intramedullary locked rods were found to support between 300 and 400% of body weight while the plate systems failed at loads between 100 and 200% of body weight.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Bone Nails</subject><subject>Bone Plates</subject><subject>Cadaver</subject><subject>Femoral Fractures - surgery</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation, Internal - instrumentation</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation, Internal - methods</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - instrumentation</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Implant rigidity comparison</subject><subject>Injuries of the limb. Injuries of the spine</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Subtrochanteric femoral fracture</subject><subject>Traumas. Diseases due to physical agents</subject><issn>0736-0266</issn><issn>1554-527X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1984</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1PHCEYh0mjsavttbcmczDeZuVrgDkao6tmo0k_YtMLAYbJYmeWFRi__npZZ7OmJ0-84X1-L_AAwDcEpwhCfHznwxTlCmJIEP4EJqiqaFlh_mcHTCAnrISYsc9gP8a7THGExR7YY7RGAsMJWJwU2vnemoVaOqO6wvh-pYKLfln4tnjIpR9i0du08E1cb8WktOvci0puZOKgU_DrAckGZ4o2KJOGYN_otLBFa_shfAG7reqi_bpZD8Dv87Nfpxfl_GZ2eXoyLw1FHJes4ZhRQ6ggxJBGEFhr2hJlmKao1o1oiG1EpQnXuqFc1BQrYmuolaG8YoIcgKNx7ir4-8HGJHsXje06tbT5JVIgAgUVPIPTETTBxxhsK1fB9So8SwTlWq3MauW72hz4vpk86N42W3zjMvcPN30Vs8msYWlc3GJ1_gdKWcbqEXt0nX3-4FB5dfPjvyuUY9bFZJ-2WRX-ScYJr-Tt9Uz-vb6d058MyRl5BfzZolg</recordid><startdate>1984</startdate><enddate>1984</enddate><creator>Tencer, A. F.</creator><creator>Johnson, K. D.</creator><creator>Johnston, D. W. C.</creator><creator>Gill, K.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>1984</creationdate><title>A biomechanical comparison of various methods of stabilization of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur</title><author>Tencer, A. F. ; Johnson, K. D. ; Johnston, D. W. C. ; Gill, K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4172-6d7264c34833c3d8309b4f3ac6b419bd8d3ed85b37bbd478942a3e90bac475683</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1984</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Bone Nails</topic><topic>Bone Plates</topic><topic>Cadaver</topic><topic>Femoral Fractures - surgery</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation, Internal - instrumentation</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation, Internal - methods</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - instrumentation</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Implant rigidity comparison</topic><topic>Injuries of the limb. Injuries of the spine</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Subtrochanteric femoral fracture</topic><topic>Traumas. Diseases due to physical agents</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tencer, A. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, K. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnston, D. W. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gill, K.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of orthopaedic research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tencer, A. F.</au><au>Johnson, K. D.</au><au>Johnston, D. W. C.</au><au>Gill, K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A biomechanical comparison of various methods of stabilization of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur</atitle><jtitle>Journal of orthopaedic research</jtitle><addtitle>J. Orthop. Res</addtitle><date>1984</date><risdate>1984</risdate><volume>2</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>297</spage><epage>305</epage><pages>297-305</pages><issn>0736-0266</issn><eissn>1554-527X</eissn><coden>JOREDR</coden><abstract>Subtrochanteric femoral fractures with and without bony contact were simulated in cadaver specimens, fixed with one of seven different types of intramedullary or plate implants, and tested biomechanically. The implants used were Enders pins, Zickel nail, compression hip screw, AO angled blade plate, and intramedullary locked nail systems of the Klemm‐Schellman, Brooker‐Wills, and Grosse‐Kempf types. Femur‐implant constructs using intramedullary devices were a maximum of 5% as stiff in torsion as intact cadaveric femora tested in the same manner, while plate‐fixed fractures were nearly 50% as stiff. In bending, all devices except the Enders pins were ∼80% as stiff as intact femora. Loss of bony contact at the fracture site had little effect on stiffness except in the case of the keyless compression hip screw, where the screw rotated freely in the barrel. In combined bending and compression to failure, a test to simulate forces due to body weight, the intramedullary locked rods were found to support between 300 and 400% of body weight while the plate systems failed at loads between 100 and 200% of body weight.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><pmid>6491820</pmid><doi>10.1002/jor.1100020312</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0736-0266
ispartof Journal of orthopaedic research, 1984, Vol.2 (3), p.297-305
issn 0736-0266
1554-527X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_81308487
source MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Biomechanical Phenomena
Bone Nails
Bone Plates
Cadaver
Femoral Fractures - surgery
Fracture Fixation, Internal - instrumentation
Fracture Fixation, Internal - methods
Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - instrumentation
Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - methods
Humans
Implant rigidity comparison
Injuries of the limb. Injuries of the spine
Medical sciences
Subtrochanteric femoral fracture
Traumas. Diseases due to physical agents
title A biomechanical comparison of various methods of stabilization of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T00%3A05%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20biomechanical%20comparison%20of%20various%20methods%20of%20stabilization%20of%20subtrochanteric%20fractures%20of%20the%20femur&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20orthopaedic%20research&rft.au=Tencer,%20A.%20F.&rft.date=1984&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=297&rft.epage=305&rft.pages=297-305&rft.issn=0736-0266&rft.eissn=1554-527X&rft.coden=JOREDR&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jor.1100020312&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E81308487%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=81308487&rft_id=info:pmid/6491820&rfr_iscdi=true