Higher stability and more predictive fixation with the Femoral Neck System versus Hansson Pins in femoral neck fractures Pauwels II.

Biomechanics Dorsal tilting Femoral Neck System Femoral neck fracture Hansson Pin System Posterior comminution

Journal

Journal of orthopaedic translation
ISSN: 2214-031X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Translat
Pays: Singapore
ID NLM: 101625127

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Historique:
received: 30 01 2020
revised: 17 05 2020
accepted: 10 06 2020
entrez: 11 8 2020
pubmed: 11 8 2020
medline: 11 8 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

To evaluate the biomechanical performance of the Femoral Neck System (FNS) versus the Hansson Pin System (Hansson Pins) with two parallel pins in a Pauwels II femoral neck fracture model with posterior comminution. Forty-degree Pauwels II femoral neck fractures AO 31-B2.1 with 15° posterior wedge were simulated in fourteen paired fresh-frozen human femora, followed by instrumentation with either FNS or Hansson Pins in pair-matched fashion. Implant positioning was quantified by measuring shortest implant distances to inferior cortex (DI) and posterior cortex (DP) on anteroposterior and axial X-rays, respectively. Biomechanical testing was performed in 20° adduction and 10° flexion with simulated iliopsoas muscle tension. Progressively increasing cyclic loading was applied until construct failure. Interfragmentary femoral head-to-shaft movements were measured with optical motion tracking. Cycles to 10° varus deformation were significantly higher for FNS (23007 ​± ​5496) versus Hansson Pins (17289 ​± ​4686), P ​= ​0.027. Cycles to 10° femoral head dorsal tilting (FNS: 12765 ​± ​3425; Hansson Pins: 13357 ​± ​6104) and cycles to 10° rotation around the femoral neck axis (FNS: 24453 ​± ​5073; Hansson Pins: 20185 ​± ​11065) were comparable between the implants, P ​≥ ​0.314. For Hansson Pins, the outcomes for varus deformation and dorsal tilting correlated significantly with DI and DP, respectively (P ​≤ ​0.047), whereas these correlations were not significant for FNS (P ​≥ ​0.310). From a biomechanical perspective, by providing superior resistance against varus deformation and performing in a less sensitive way to variations in implant placement, the angular stable Femoral Neck System can be considered as a valid alternative to the Hansson Pin System for the treatment of Pauwels II femoral neck fractures. therapeutic, Level V. The translational potential of this article is to compare the performance of the FNS with Hansson Pins in a AO 31-B2.1 fracture model featuring a 15 posterior wedge to show the implants behavior concerning the dorsal tilting tendency.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32775200
doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2020.06.002
pii: S2214-031X(20)30076-0
pmc: PMC7387742
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

88-95

Informations de copyright

© 2020 The Authors.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose in relation to this article.

Références

J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000 Sep;82(7):937-41
pubmed: 11041577
Unfallchirurg. 2007 May;110(5):425-32
pubmed: 17361444
J Orthop Trauma. 1989;3(1):48-52
pubmed: 2709203
J Orthop Trauma. 2016 Apr;30(4):164-9
pubmed: 27003028
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Apr;(217):190-200
pubmed: 3829499
J Orthop Trauma. 1995 Jun;9(3):215-21
pubmed: 7623173
J Biomech. 2001 Jul;34(7):859-71
pubmed: 11410170
Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1987;226:1-67
pubmed: 3327357
Acta Orthop Scand. 1993 Jun;64(3):289-93
pubmed: 8322583
J Orthop Trauma. 2015 May;29(5):e178-82
pubmed: 25233164
J Orthop Sci. 2018 May;23(3):521-524
pubmed: 29459082
PLoS One. 2016 May 19;11(5):e0155612
pubmed: 27195789
Injury. 2019 Feb;50(2):292-300
pubmed: 30473370
Ann Biomed Eng. 2005 May;33(5):661-73
pubmed: 15981866
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009 Jan;24(1):59-64
pubmed: 18977058
J Orthop Surg Res. 2009 May 18;4:16
pubmed: 19450283
J Trauma. 2008 Jan;64(1):163-9
pubmed: 18188116
J Orthop Trauma. 2017 Mar;31(3):131-137
pubmed: 27755333
Int Orthop. 2018 Feb;42(2):409-418
pubmed: 28780597
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003 Apr;85(3):426-30
pubmed: 12729123
Injury. 2006 Aug;37(8):768-77
pubmed: 16476431
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006 Sep;14(9):565-71
pubmed: 16959894
Swiss Surg. 2003;9(2):82-6
pubmed: 12723288
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Jul;77(7):1058-64
pubmed: 7608228
Acta Orthop Scand. 1992 Jun;63(3):282-7
pubmed: 1609591

Auteurs

Clemens Schopper (C)

AO Research Institute Davos, Davos, Switzerland.

Ivan Zderic (I)

AO Research Institute Davos, Davos, Switzerland.

Johanna Menze (J)

DePuy Synthes, Zuchwil, Switzerland.

David Müller (D)

DePuy Synthes, Zuchwil, Switzerland.

Mirko Rocci (M)

DePuy Synthes, Zuchwil, Switzerland.

Matthias Knobe (M)

Department of Trauma Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland.

Etsuo Shoda (E)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hyogo Prefectural Nishinomiya Hospital, Nishinomiya, Japan.

Geoff Richards (G)

AO Research Institute Davos, Davos, Switzerland.

Boyko Gueorguiev (B)

AO Research Institute Davos, Davos, Switzerland.

Karl Stoffel (K)

University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH