Biomechanical analysis of recently released cephalomedullary nails for trochanteric femoral fracture fixation in a human cadaveric model.
Biomechanical study
Bone cement augmentation
Cephalomedullary nailing
Helical blade
Interlocking lag screws
Proximal femur
Trochanteric fracture
Journal
Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
ISSN: 1434-3916
Titre abrégé: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9011043
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
10
08
2021
accepted:
27
10
2021
pubmed:
9
11
2021
medline:
28
10
2022
entrez:
8
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recently, two novel concepts for intramedullary nailing of trochanteric fractures using a helical blade or interlocking dual screws have demonstrated advantages as compared to standard single-screw systems. However, these two concepts have not been subjected to a direct biomechanical comparison so far. The aims of this study were to investigate in a human cadaveric model with low bone quality (1) the biomechanical competence of nailing with the use of a helical blade versus interlocking screws, and (2) the effect of cement augmentation on the fixation strength of the helical blade. Twelve osteoporotic and osteopenic human cadaveric femoral pairs were assigned for pairwise implantation using either a short TFN-ADVANCED Proximal Femoral Nailing System (TFNA) with a helical blade head element or a short TRIGEN INTERTAN Intertrochanteric Antegrade Nail (InterTAN) with interlocking screws. Six osteoporotic femora, implanted with TFNA, were augmented with bone cement. Four groups were created: group 1 (TFNA) paired with group 2 (InterTAN), both consisting of osteopenic specimens, and group 3 (TFNA augmented) paired with group 4 (InterTAN), both consisting of osteoporotic specimens. An unstable trochanteric AO/OTA 31-A2.2 fracture was simulated and all specimens were tested until failure under progressively increasing cyclic loading. Stiffness in group 3 was significantly higher versus group 4, p = 0.03. Varus (°) and femoral head rotation around the femoral neck axis (°) after 10,000 cycles were 1.9 ± 1.0/0.3 ± 0.2 in group 1, 2.2 ± 0.7/0.7 ± 0.4 in group 2, 1.5 ± 1.3/0.3 ± 0.2 in group 3 and 3.5 ± 2.8/0.9 ± 0.6 in group 4, being significantly different between groups 3 and 4, p = 0.04. Cycles to failure and failure load (N) at 5° varus or 10° femoral head rotation around the neck axis in groups 1-4 were 21,428 ± 6020/1571.4 ± 301.0, 20,611 ± 7453/1530.6 ± 372.7, 21,739 ± 4248/1587.0 ± 212.4 and 18,622 ± 6733/1431.1 ± 336.7, being significantly different between groups 3 and 4, p = 0.04. Nailing of trochanteric femoral fractures with use of helical blades is comparable to interlocking dual screws fixation in femoral head fragments with low bone quality. Bone cement augmentation of helical blades provides significantly greater fixation strength compared to interlocking screws constructs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Recently, two novel concepts for intramedullary nailing of trochanteric fractures using a helical blade or interlocking dual screws have demonstrated advantages as compared to standard single-screw systems. However, these two concepts have not been subjected to a direct biomechanical comparison so far. The aims of this study were to investigate in a human cadaveric model with low bone quality (1) the biomechanical competence of nailing with the use of a helical blade versus interlocking screws, and (2) the effect of cement augmentation on the fixation strength of the helical blade.
METHODS
METHODS
Twelve osteoporotic and osteopenic human cadaveric femoral pairs were assigned for pairwise implantation using either a short TFN-ADVANCED Proximal Femoral Nailing System (TFNA) with a helical blade head element or a short TRIGEN INTERTAN Intertrochanteric Antegrade Nail (InterTAN) with interlocking screws. Six osteoporotic femora, implanted with TFNA, were augmented with bone cement. Four groups were created: group 1 (TFNA) paired with group 2 (InterTAN), both consisting of osteopenic specimens, and group 3 (TFNA augmented) paired with group 4 (InterTAN), both consisting of osteoporotic specimens. An unstable trochanteric AO/OTA 31-A2.2 fracture was simulated and all specimens were tested until failure under progressively increasing cyclic loading.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Stiffness in group 3 was significantly higher versus group 4, p = 0.03. Varus (°) and femoral head rotation around the femoral neck axis (°) after 10,000 cycles were 1.9 ± 1.0/0.3 ± 0.2 in group 1, 2.2 ± 0.7/0.7 ± 0.4 in group 2, 1.5 ± 1.3/0.3 ± 0.2 in group 3 and 3.5 ± 2.8/0.9 ± 0.6 in group 4, being significantly different between groups 3 and 4, p = 0.04. Cycles to failure and failure load (N) at 5° varus or 10° femoral head rotation around the neck axis in groups 1-4 were 21,428 ± 6020/1571.4 ± 301.0, 20,611 ± 7453/1530.6 ± 372.7, 21,739 ± 4248/1587.0 ± 212.4 and 18,622 ± 6733/1431.1 ± 336.7, being significantly different between groups 3 and 4, p = 0.04.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Nailing of trochanteric femoral fractures with use of helical blades is comparable to interlocking dual screws fixation in femoral head fragments with low bone quality. Bone cement augmentation of helical blades provides significantly greater fixation strength compared to interlocking screws constructs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34748055
doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-04239-7
pii: 10.1007/s00402-021-04239-7
doi:
Substances chimiques
Bone Cements
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3787-3796Subventions
Organisme : DePuy Synthes Spine
ID : RXMU 30
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Baumgaertner MR, Solberg BD (1997) Awareness of tip-apex distance reduces failure of fixation of trochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79(6):969–971
pubmed: 9393914
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.79B6.0790969
Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M et al (2001) Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech 34(7):859–871
pubmed: 11410170
doi: 10.1016/S0021-9290(01)00040-9
Bonnaire F, Weber A, Bösl O, Eckhardt C, Schwieger K, Linke B (2007) “Cutting out” in pertrochanteric fractures–problem of osteoporosis? Unfallchirurg 110(5):425–432
pubmed: 17361444
doi: 10.1007/s00113-007-1248-0
Chapman T, Zmistowski B, Krieg J, Stake S, Jones CM, Levicoff E (2018) Helical blade versus screw fixation in the treatment of hip fractures with cephalomedullary devices: incidence of failure and atypical “Medial Cutout.” J Orthop Trauma 32(8):397–402
pubmed: 30035756
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001193
Chun KJ (2011) Bone densitometry. Semin Nucl Med 41(3):220–228
pubmed: 21440697
doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2010.12.002
Cinque ME, Goodnough LH, Md BJS et al (2021) Short versus long cephalomedullary nailing of intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis of 3208 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03752-z
pubmed: 33484311
Frei HC, Hotz T, Cadosch D, Rudin M, Käch K (2012) Central head perforation, or “cut through,” caused by the helical blade of the proximal femoral nail antirotation. J Orthop Trauma 26(8):e102-107
pubmed: 22357090
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31822c53c1
Goffin JM, Pankaj P, Simpson AH, Seil R, Gerich TG (2013) Does bone compaction around the helical blade of a proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) decrease the risk of cut-out?: a subject-specific computational study. Bone Joint Res 2(5):79–83
pubmed: 23673407
pmcid: 3670539
doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.25.2000150
Gueorguiev B, Ockert B, Schwieger K et al (2011) Angular stability potentially permits fewer locking screws compared with conventional locking in intramedullary nailed distal tibia fractures: a biomechanical study. J Orthop Trauma 25(6):340–346
pubmed: 21577069
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3182163345
Hoffmann S, Paetzold R, Stephan D, Püschel K, Buehren V, Augat P (2013) Biomechanical evaluation of interlocking lag screw design in intramedullary nailing of unstable pertrochanteric fractures. J Orthop Trauma 27(9):483–490
pubmed: 23860133
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3182a1f54b
Hsueh KK, Fang CK, Chen CM, Su YP, Wu HF, Chiu FY (2010) Risk factors in cutout of sliding hip screw in intertrochanteric fractures: an evaluation of 937 patients. Int Orthop 34(8):1273–1276
pubmed: 19784649
doi: 10.1007/s00264-009-0866-2
Huang Y, Zhang C, Luo Y (2013) A comparative biomechanical study of proximal femoral nail (InterTAN) and proximal femoral nail antirotation for intertrochanteric fractures. Int Orthop 37(12):2465–2473
pubmed: 24091417
pmcid: 3843204
doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-2120-1
Jiang W, Liu Y, Yang L et al (2014) Biomechanical comparative study on proximal femoral locking plate and Gamma3 for treatment of stable intertrochanteric fracture. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 28(9):1096–1099
pubmed: 25509773
Johnson NA, Uzoigwe C, Venkatesan M et al (2017) Risk factors for intramedullary nail breakage in proximal femoral fractures: a 10-year retrospective review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 99(2):145–150
pubmed: 27659368
pmcid: 5392826
doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2016.0297
Kammerlander C, Gebhard F, Meier C et al (2011) Standardised cement augmentation of the PFNA using a perforated blade: a new technique and preliminary clinical results. A prospective multicentre trial. Injury 42(12):1484–1490
pubmed: 21855063
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.07.010
Kammerlander C, Hem ES, Klopfer T et al (2018) Cement augmentation of the Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation (PFNA)—a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Injury 49(8):1436–1444
pubmed: 29724590
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.04.022
Kammerlander C, Pfeufer D, Lisitano LA, Mehaffey S, Böcker W, Neuerburg C (2018) Inability of older adult patients with hip fracture to maintain postoperative weight-bearing restrictions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 100(11):936–941
pubmed: 29870444
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.17.01222
Keppler AM, Pfeufer D, Kau F et al (2021) Cement augmentation of the Proximal Femur Nail Antirotation (PFNA) is associated with enhanced weight-bearing in older adults. Injury. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2021.01.037
pubmed: 34420689
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2021.01.037
Knobe M, Bettag S, Kammerlander C et al (2019) Is bone-cement augmentation of screw-anchor fixation systems superior in unstable femoral neck fractures? A biomechanical cadaveric study. Injury 50(2):292–300
pubmed: 30473370
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.10.038
Knobe M, Gradl G, Buecking B et al (2015) Locked minimally invasive plating versus fourth generation nailing in the treatment of AO/OTA 31A2.2 fractures: a biomechanical comparison of PCCP(
pubmed: 25997559
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.05.011
Knobe M, Gradl G, Ladenburger A, Tarkin IS, Pape HC (2013) Unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures: is there a consensus on definition and treatment in Germany? Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(9):2831–2840
pubmed: 23389806
pmcid: 3734428
doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-2834-9
Knobe M, Nagel P, Maier KJ et al (2016) Rotationally stable screw-anchor with locked trochanteric stabilizing plate versus proximal femoral nail antirotation in the treatment of AO/OTA 31A22 fracture: a biomechanical evaluation. J Orthop Trauma 30(1):e12–e18
pubmed: 26849388
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000422
Knobe M, Siebert CH (2014) Hip fractures in the elderly: osteosynthesis versus joint replacement. Orthopade 43(4):314–324
pubmed: 24615534
doi: 10.1007/s00132-014-2265-7
Kold S, Rahbek O, Vestermark M, Overgaard S, Søballe K (2005) Bone compaction enhances fixation of weightbearing titanium implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 431:138–144
doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000150461.69142.f3
Konstantinidis L, Papaioannou C, Hirschmüller A et al (2013) Intramedullary nailing of trochanteric fractures: central or caudal positioning of the load carrier? A biomechanical comparative study on cadaver bones. Injury 44(6):784–790
pubmed: 23395417
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2012.12.023
Lenich A, Vester H, Nerlich M, Mayr E, Stöckle U, Füchtmeier B (2010) Clinical comparison of the second and third generation of intramedullary devices for trochanteric fractures of the hip-blade vs screw. Injury 41(12):1292–1296
pubmed: 20728885
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.07.499
Lewis CL, Sahrmann SA (2015) Effect of posture on hip angles and moments during gait. Man Ther 20(1):176–182
pubmed: 25262565
doi: 10.1016/j.math.2014.08.007
Lorich DG, Geller DS, Nielson JH (2004) Osteoporotic pertrochanteric hip fractures: management and current controversies. Instr Course Lect 53:441–454
pubmed: 15116633
Namdari S, Rabinovich R, Scolaro J, Baldwin K, Bhandari M, Mehta S (2013) Absorbable and non-absorbable cement augmentation in fixation of intertrochanteric femur fractures: systematic review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133(4):487–494
pubmed: 23315070
doi: 10.1007/s00402-012-1677-2
Nherera L, Trueman P, Horner A, Watson T, Johnstone AJ (2018) Comparison of a twin interlocking derotation and compression screw cephalomedullary nail (InterTAN) with a single screw derotation cephalomedullary nail (proximal femoral nail antirotation): a systematic review and meta-analysis for intertrochanteric fractures. J Orthop Surg Res 13(1):46
pubmed: 29499715
pmcid: 5834859
doi: 10.1186/s13018-018-0749-6
O’Neill F, Condon F, McGloughlin T, Lenehan B, Coffey JC, Walsh M (2011) Dynamic hip screw versus DHS blade: a biomechanical comparison of the fixation achieved by each implant in bone. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(5):616–621
pubmed: 21511926
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B5.25539
Oldmeadow LB, Edwards ER, Kimmel LA, Kipen E, Robertson VJ, Bailey MJ (2006) No rest for the wounded: early ambulation after hip surgery accelerates recovery. ANZ J Surg 76(7):607–611
pubmed: 16813627
doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2006.03786.x
Parker MJ, Handoll HH (2004) Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:Cd000093
Pfeufer D, Zeller A, Mehaffey S, Böcker W, Kammerlander C, Neuerburg C (2019) Weight-bearing restrictions reduce postoperative mobility in elderly hip fracture patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139(9):1253–1259
pubmed: 31053870
doi: 10.1007/s00402-019-03193-9
Rupprecht M, Grossterlinden L, Ruecker AH et al (2011) A comparative biomechanical analysis of fixation devices for unstable femoral neck fractures: the Intertan versus cannulated screws or a dynamic hip screw. J Trauma 71(3):625–634
pubmed: 21768904
Sarai H, Schmutz B, Schuetz M (2021) Potential pitfalls of lateral radiographic assessment of the nail position in the distal femur. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03851-x
pubmed: 33704560
Sermon A, Boner V, Boger A et al (2012) Potential of polymethylmethacrylate cement-augmented helical proximal femoral nail antirotation blades to improve implant stability—a biomechanical investigation in human cadaveric femoral heads. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 72(2):E54-59
pubmed: 22439233
doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31821852ed
Sermon A, Boner V, Schwieger K et al (2012) Biomechanical evaluation of bone-cement augmented Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation blades in a polyurethane foam model with low density. Clin Biomech 27(1):71–76
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.07.006
Sermon A, Hofmann-Fliri L, Richards RG, Flamaing J, Windolf M (2014) Cement augmentation of hip implants in osteoporotic bone: how much cement is needed and where should it go? J Orthop Res 32(3):362–368
pubmed: 24259367
doi: 10.1002/jor.22522
Sermon A, Zderic I, Khatchadourian R et al (2021) Bone cement augmentation of femoral nail head elements increases their cut-out resistance in poor bone quality—a biomechanical study. J Biomech 118:110301
pubmed: 33582598
doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110301
Serrano R, Blair JA, Watson DT et al (2017) Cephalomedullary nail fixation of intertrochanteric femur fractures: are two proximal screws better than one? J Orthop Trauma 31(11):577–582
pubmed: 28827501
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000967
Simmermacher RK, Ljungqvist J, Bail H et al (2008) The new proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in daily practice: results of a multicentre clinical study. Injury 39(8):932–939
pubmed: 18582887
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2008.02.005
Windolf M, Braunstein V, Dutoit C, Schwieger K (2009) Is a helical shaped implant a superior alternative to the Dynamic Hip Screw for unstable femoral neck fractures? A biomechanical investigation. Clin Biomech 24(1):59–64
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.07.004
Windolf M, Muths R, Braunstein V, Gueorguiev B, Hänni M, Schwieger K (2009) Quantification of cancellous bone-compaction due to DHS Blade insertion and influence upon cut-out resistance. Clin Biomech 24(1):53–58
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.09.005
Wu CC, Wang CJ, Shyu YI (2011) Variations in bone mineral density of proximal femora of elderly people with hip fractures: a case-control analysis. J Trauma 71(6):1720–1725
pubmed: 21841516
Yaozeng X, Dechun G, Huilin Y, Guangming Z, Xianbin W (2010) Comparative study of trochanteric fracture treated with the proximal femoral nail anti-rotation and the third generation of gamma nail. Injury 41(12):1234–1238
pubmed: 21374904
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.03.005
Yee DKH, Lau W, Tiu KL et al (2020) Cementation: for better or worse? Interim results of a multi-centre cohort study using a fenestrated spiral blade cephalomedullary device for pertrochanteric fractures in the elderly. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140(12):1957–1964
pubmed: 32335758
doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03449-9
Zderic I, Oh JK, Stoffel K et al (2018) Biomechanical analysis of the proximal femoral locking compression plate: do quality of reduction and screw orientation influence construct stability? J Orthop Trauma 32(2):67–74
pubmed: 28834823
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001008