Biomechanical study of different internal fixations in the treatment of supracondylar femoral fractures

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2015.09.024

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: There are various fixation methods in the treatment of supracondylar femoral fractures, including plates and interlocking intramedullary nails. Due to differences in biomechanical properties, the clinical curative effect of the two methods in the treatment of supracondylar femoral fracture is different.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the biomechanical properties of two fixations in the treatment of supracondylar femoral fractures, explore the stress distribution differences of two fixations for supracondylar femoral fractures, and provide clinical basis for the selection of ideal fixation.
METHODS: Twelve sets of adult cadaveric femoral bone were selected, and the supracondylar femoral bone was sawn with an electric saw to establish supracondylar femoral fracture models. After anatomic reduction, the fracture samples were fixed with less invasive stabilization system (LISS) plates and retrograde interlocking intramedullary nails, respectively. Six strain gages were mounted near the fracture plane and pin track, then the fracture models were placed in the Zwick Z100 electronic universal material test machine and torisional testing machine (RNJ-500), receiving a linear load of 0-400 N and a torisional load of 0-20 N•m. Local stresses were detected, and their distributions under the same load in the two fixations were also measured.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: In the experimental loading condition, the stress at the fracture end and around the pin track increased with the increase of the load both in the LISS plate groups and retrograde interlocking intramedullary nail groups. In the same linear loading, the strain value at six testing points in the retrograde interlocking intramedullary nail groups was higher than that in the LISS plate groups (P < 0.01); in the same torsional loading, the LISS plate groups showed high strain value than the retrograde interlocking intramedullary nail groups in the six test points (P < 0.01). Retrograde interlocking intramedullary nails can obviously reduce stress-shielding in the treatment of supracondylar femoral fractures, which is beneficial to the stress conduction. It also resists axial force and torsion. Therefore it can be applied in the clinical practice.

中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：人工关节；骨植入物；脊柱；骨折；内固定；数字化骨科；组织工程

全文链接：

Key words: Femur, Biomechanics, Internal Fixators, Fractures, Bone

CLC Number:

R318

Yang Qing, Guo Wei-chun, Liu Yang, Tan Jun-feng, Zhang Mi, Li Ming-hui, Zhang Hong-qi . Biomechanical study of different internal fixations in the treatment of supracondylar femoral fractures[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2015, 19(9): 1452-1456.

Figures/Tables 2

References

[1] Katz MH. Multivariable analysis: a practical guide for clinicians and public health researchers. New York: Cambridge University Press, USA. 2011.
[2] Nieves JW, Bilezikian JP, Lane JM, et al. Fragility fractures of the hip and femur: incidence and patient characteristics. Osteoporos Int. 2010;21:399-408.
[3] Zhang Y. Clinical epidemiology of orthopedic trauma. New York: Thieme. 2012;7:335.
[4] Markmiller M, Konrad G, Sudkamp N. Femur-LISS and distal femoral nail for fixation of distal femoral fractures: are there differences in outcome and complications? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;426:252-257.
[5] Fankhauser F, Gruber G, Schippinger G, et al. Minimal-invasive treatment of distal femoral fractures with the LISS (Less Invasive Stabilization System): a prospective study of 30 fractures with a follow up of 20 months. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75:56-60.
[6] Ghandour A, Cosker TD, Kadambande SS, et al. Experience of the T2 supracondylar nail in distal femoral fractures. Injury. 2006;37:1019-1025.
[7] Stivala A, Hartley C. The effeets of a pilates-based exercise rehabilitation program on functional outcome and fall risk reduction in an aging adult status-post traumatic hip fracture due to a fall. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2014;37:136-145.
[8] Wu CC. Modified retrograde-locked nailing for aseptic femoral supracondylar nonunion with severe osteoporosis in elderly patients. J Trauma. 2011;71:26-30.
[9] Paller DJ, Frenzen SW, Bartlett CS 3rd, et al. A three-dimensional comparison of intramedullary nail constructs for osteopenic supracondylar femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2013;27:93-99.
[10] Wong MK, Leung F, Chow SP. Treatment of distal femoral fractures in the elderly using a less invasive plating technique. Int Orthop. 2005;29(2):117-120.
[11] Aldrian S, Schuster R, Haas N, et al. Fixation of supracondylar femoral fractures following total knee arthroplasty: is there any difference comparing angular stable plate fixation versus rigid interlocking nail fixation? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133:921-927.
[12] Schutz M, Muller M, Krettek C, et al. Minimally invasive fracture stabilization of distal femoral fractures with the LISS: a prospective multicenter study: results of a clinical study with special emphasis on difficult cases. Injury. 2001;32(Suppl): SC48-SC54.
[13] Bong MR, Egol KA, Koval KJ, et al. Comparison of the LISS and a retrogradeinserted supracondylar intramedullary nail for fixation of a periprosthetic distal femur fracture proximal to a total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:876-881.
[14] Heiney JP, Barnett MD, Vrabec GA, et al. Distal femoral fixation: a biomechanical comparison of trigen retrograde intramedullary (i.m.) nail, dynamic condylar screw (DCS), and locking compression plate (LCP) condylar plate. J Trauma. 2009;66:443-449.
[15] Kitson J, Booth G, Day R. A biomechanical comparison of locking plate and locking nail implants used for fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007;16: 362-366.
[16] Kao FC, Tu YK, Su JY, et al. Treatment of distal femoral fracture by minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis: comparison between the dynamic condylar screw and the less invasive stabilization system. J Trauma 2009;67:719-726.
[17] Heiney J P, Battula S, O'Connor JA, et al. Distal femoral fixation: a biomechanical comparison of retrograde nail, retrograde intramedullary nail, and prototype locking retrograde nail. Clin Biomech. 2012;27(7):692-696.
[18] Cornell CN, Ayalon O. Evidence for success with locking plates for fragility fractures. HSS J. 2011;7:164-169.
[19] Petsatodis G, Chatzisymeon A, Antonarakos P, et al. Condylar buttress plate versus dynamic condylar screw for supracondylar intra-articular distal femoral fractures. J Orthop Surg. 2010;18(1):35-38.
[20] Garnavos C, Lygdas P, Lasanianos NG, et al. Retrograde nailing and compression bolts in the treatment of type C distal femoral fractures. Injury. 2012;43(7):1170-1175.
[21] Zlowodzki M, Williamson S, Cole PA, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of the less invasive stabilization system, angled blade plate, and retrograde intramedullary nail for the internal fixation of distal femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18: 494-502.
[22] Pekmezci M, McDonald E, Buckley J, et al. Retrograde intramedullary nails with distal screws locked to the nail have higher fatigue strength than locking plates in the treatment of supracondylar femoral fractures: a cadaver-based laboratory investigation. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B:114-121.
[23] Thomson AB, Driver R, Kregor PJ, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after intra-articular distal femur fractures: ORIF versus retrograde intramedullary nailing. Orthopedics. 2008; 31(8):748-750.
[24] Ghandour A, Cosker TDA, Kadambande SS, et al. Experience of the T2 supracondylar nail in distal femoral fractures. Injury. 2006;37(10):1019-1025.