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

A. F. Tencer, K. D. Johnson, D. W C Johnston, K. Gill

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

133 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)297-305
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Orthopaedic Research
Volume2
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1984

Fingerprint

Hip Fractures
Femur
Body Weight
Nails
Hip
Equipment and Supplies
Femoral Fractures
Cadaver

Keywords

  • Implant rigidity comparison
  • Subtrochanteric femoral fracture

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

A biomechanical comparison of various methods of stabilization of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. / Tencer, A. F.; Johnson, K. D.; Johnston, D. W C; Gill, K.

In: Journal of Orthopaedic Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1984, p. 297-305.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{17b5c728f25e4d3ab1b378827cc016d8,
title = "A biomechanical comparison of various methods of stabilization of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur",
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.",
keywords = "Implant rigidity comparison, Subtrochanteric femoral fracture",
author = "Tencer, {A. F.} and Johnson, {K. D.} and Johnston, {D. W C} and K. Gill",
year = "1984",
doi = "10.1002/jor.1100020312",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "297--305",
journal = "Journal of Orthopaedic Research",
issn = "0736-0266",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A biomechanical comparison of various methods of stabilization of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur

AU - Tencer, A. F.

AU - Johnson, K. D.

AU - Johnston, D. W C

AU - Gill, K.

PY - 1984

Y1 - 1984

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Implant rigidity comparison

KW - Subtrochanteric femoral fracture

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0021678609&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0021678609&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jor.1100020312

DO - 10.1002/jor.1100020312

M3 - Article

C2 - 6491820

AN - SCOPUS:0021678609

VL - 2

SP - 297

EP - 305

JO - Journal of Orthopaedic Research

JF - Journal of Orthopaedic Research

SN - 0736-0266

IS - 3

ER -