Biomechanical analysis on Vancouver BI periprosthetic femoral fractures fixed by a customized anatomical plate system

doi:10.12307/2024.622

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: At present, the use of a locking bone plate combined with steel wire or steel cable for the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture often adopts monocortical fixation, which is not stable and the proximal end of the bone cannot be achieved anatomically fitted by plate. The customized anatomical plate system can effectively solve this problem.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the biomechanical strength of a customized anatomical plate system in fixation of Vancouver BI periprosthetic femoral fracture.
METHODS: CT thin layer scanning data of normal femurs of 1 006 cases were selected and input into the MIMICS 21.0 software to establish the three-dimensional reconstruction model of the femur, which was set as the three-dimensional reconstruction group. 56 complete human femoral specimens were selected as the femoral specimen group. The measured results of the two groups for femoral anatomical appearance were compared. If there was no significant difference between the two groups, the approximate appearance of a customized anatomical plate system was designed based on the measurement results in MIMICS 21.0 software and NX11.0 software. The customized anatomical plate system was designed and prepared according to the above measurement results. Eight pairs of frozen human femurs were selected to make Vancouver BI periprosthetic femoral fracture, which of the left were thin layer scanned by dual-source CT to obtain data. The data were transferred to determine the customized anatomical plate system model by the above design software. Eight sets of customized anatomical plate systems were ultimately produced, relying on the instrument company. The eight pairs of models were numbered 1-8. The left side was fixed with the customized anatomical plate system (customized anatomical plate system group); the right side was fixed with a metal locking plate system-large locking plate (claw plate group). L1-L4 and R1-R4 were subjected to vertical short-cycle loading test and vertical loading test. L5-L8 and R5-R8 were subjected to horizontal short-cycle loading test and four-point bending test. The vertical loading test and four-point bending test were used to collect bending load, bending displacement, and bending strain. Two short cycle loading tests were used to collect strain displacement to compare the maximum load, maximum displacement, bending stiffness, and short-period displacement resistance of the two kinds of bone plates.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) There were no significant differences in all indexes between the three-dimensional reconstruction group and the femoral specimen group (P > 0.05). Individual customized anatomical plate system was designed based on the measurement results combined with digital software. (2) In the vertical loading test, the maximum load was higher (P=0.015), the maximum bending displacement was smaller (P=0.014), and the bending stiffness was higher (P=0.005) in the customized anatomical plate system group compared with the claw plate group. (3) In the four-point bending test, the maximum load was higher (P=0.023), the bending stiffness was higher (P=0.005), and the maximum bending displacement was not significant (P=0.216 > 0.05) in the customized anatomical plate system group compared with the claw plate group. (4) In the vertical short-cycle loading test, the average level of bending displacement in the customized anatomical plate system group (0.23±0.10 mm) was significantly lower than that in the claw plate group (0.44±0.02 mm)
(P < 0.05). (5) There was no significant difference in the average level of bending displacement between the two groups in the horizontal short cycle loading test (P > 0.05). (6) It is concluded that the customized anatomical plate system has personalized anatomical characteristics, and the fixation of Vancouver BI periprosthetic femoral fracture is more stable, which has certain significance for clinical treatment.

Key words: periprosthetic femoral fracture, customized anatomical plate system, biomechanics, anatomical morphology of femur, Vancouver classification

CLC Number:

Wang Jiaqi, Luo Xiaozhong, Tong Yi, Lu Xiaobo, Shi Weixiang, Zhou Xin, Wu Gang, Ding Yong, Zhang Caidong. Biomechanical analysis on Vancouver BI periprosthetic femoral fractures fixed by a customized anatomical plate system[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2024, 28(24): 3807-3813.

Figures/Tables 7

References

[1] RAMAVATH A, LAMB JN, PALAN J, et al. Postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture around total hip replacements: current concepts and clinical outcomes. EFORT Open Rev. 2020;5(9):558-567.
[2] DUNCAN CP, MASRI BA. Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. J Instr Course Lect. 1995;44:293-230.
[3] COMPOSE Study Team. Epidemiology and characteristics of femoral periprosthetic fractures : data from the characteristics, outcomes and management of periprosthetic fracture service evaluation (COMPOSE) cohort study. Bone Joint J. 2022;104-B(8):987-996.
[4] LINDAHL H, MALCHAU H, HERBERTS P, et al. Periprosthetic femoral fractures classification and demographics of 1049 periprosthetic femoral fractures from the Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20(7):857-865.
[5] CIRIELLO V, CHIARPENELLO R, TOMARCHIO A, et al. The management of Vancouver B1 and C periprosthetic fractures: radiographic and clinic outcomes of a monocentric consecutive series. Hip Int. 2020;30(2_suppl): 94-100.
[6] LEGOSZ P, PLATEK AE, RYS-CZAPOROWSKA A, et al. Correlations between Vancouver type of periprosthetic femur fracture and treatment outcomes. J Orthop. 2019;16(6):517-521.
[7] TSIRIDIS E, KRIKLER S, GIANNOUDIS PV. Periprosthetic femoral fractures: current aspects of management. Injury. 2007;38(6):649-650.
[8] PIKE J, DAVIDSON D, GARBUZ D, et al. Principles of treatment for periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures around well-fixed total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(11):677-688.
[9] ZDERO R, WALKER R, WADDELL JP, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(5): 1068-1077.
[10] LOCHAB J, CARROTHERS A, WONG E, et al. Do Transcortical Screws in a Locking Plate Construct Improve the Stiffness in the Fixation of Vancouver B1 Periprosthetic Femur Fractures? A Biomechanical Analysis of 2 Different Plating Constructs. J Orthop Trauma. 2017;31(1):15-20.
[11] KACZMAREK J, BARTKOWIAK T, SCHUENEMANN R, et al. Mechanical Performance of a Polyaxial Locking Plate and the Influence of Screw Angulation in a Fracture Gap Model. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 2020; 33(1):36-44.
[12] PATSIOGIANNIS N, KANAKARIS NK, GIANNOUDIS PV. Periprosthetic hip fractures: an update into their management and clinical outcomes. EFORT Open Rev. 2021;6(1):75-92.
[13] GRAHAM SM, MAK JH, MOAZEN M, et al. Periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation: a biomechanical comparison between proximal locking screws and cables. J Orthop Sci. 2015;20:875-880.
[14] FULKERSON E, EGOL KA, KUBIAK EN, et al. Fixation of diaphyseal fractures with a segmental defect: a biomechanical comparison of locked and conventional plating techniques. J Trauma. 2006;60(4):830-835.
[15] 裴国献,张元智.数字骨科学:一门骨科学新分支的萌生[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2007,9(7):601-604.
[16] 刘瑞平,徐南伟,戴亚芬,等.定制钢板治疗膝、踝关节周围骨折的初期疗效[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2012,14(9):759-762.
[17] 万永鲜,卓乃强,阳运康,等.数字化定制钢板治疗四肢复杂骨折的疗效观察[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2015,29(4):402-405.
[18] LENZ M, GUEORGUIEV B, JOSEPH S, et al. Angulated locking plate in periprosthetic proximal femur fractures: biomechanical testing of a new prototype plate. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132(10):1437-1444.
[19] 伏治国,施耀华,翟羽,等.锁定加压接骨板固定股骨近端假体周围骨折的生物力学分析[J].医用生物力学,2021,36(1):62-67.
[20] 胡东才,谭杨,陈廖斌,等.股骨大转子区解剖参数测量及其临床意义[J].解剖学杂志,2014,37(1):72-74.
[21] 吴蔚,许建中,郭漳生.成人正常股骨解剖测量及其在膝关节置换的临床意义[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2006,14(3):200-202.
[22] MIN BW, CHO CH, SON ES, et al. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis with locking compression plate in patients with Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury. 2018;49(7):1336-1340.
[23] ROCHE-ALBERO A, MATEO-AGUDO J, MARTÍN-HERNÁNDEZ C, et al. Osteosynthesis in Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic fractures. Injury. 2021; 52(8):2451-2458.