SUMMARY
The aim of the study was to determine the relationship between implant-associated complications and Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS) placement in the femoral
neck, based on a Finite Element (FE) Analysis. Very diverse implant failures and subsequent complications can be encountered after introduction of the
DHS. We evaluated 308 dynamic hip screw osteosyntheses for pertrochanteric fractures in 297 patients. The ABAQUS 6.9 program was used for development
of the FE model, and the analyses were performed in 5 modelled situations corresponding to five different screw locations. Complications occurred in
10% of patients and re-operation was necessary in 3.9%. The highest risk of implant failure was associated with the screw situation in the upper third
of the femoral neck. Placing a dynamic hip screw in the middle third of the neck significantly reduced stresses in the plate and screw. The screw
position in the upper third of the neck significantly increased these stresses. The finite element analysis confirmed our clinical experience that the
optimum position of the dynamic hip screw is in the middle third of the femoral neck.
KEY WORDS
dynamic hip screw; proximal femoral fracture; finite element method
REFERENCES
Baca V, Kachlik D, Horak Z, Stingl, J. The course of osteons in the compact bone of the human proximal femur with clinical and biomechanical
significance. Surg Rad Anat. 29: 201-207, 2007.
[CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Baca V, Horak Z, Mikulenka P, Dzupa V. Comparison of an inhomogeneous orthotropic and isotropic material models used for FE analyses. Med Eng Phys.
30: 924-930, 2008.
[CrossRef]
Barton TM, Gleeson R, Topliss C, Greenwood R, Harries WJ, Chesser TSJ. A comparison of the long gama nail with the sliding hip screw for the treatment
of AO/OTA 31-A2 fractures of the proximal part of the femur. J Bone Jt Surg. 92A: 792-798, 2010.
[CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Bartonicek J, Dousa P, Skala-Rosenbaum J, Kostal R. Trochanteric fractures - current concepts review. Uraz Chir (in Czech). 10: 13-24, 2002.
Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM, Keggi JM. The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures
of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg. 77A: 1058-1064, 1995.
Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M, Graichen F, Rohlmann A, Strauss J, Duda GN. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J
Biomech. 34: 859-871, 2001.
[PubMed]
Bergmann G, Graichen F, Rohlmann A. Hip joint contact forces during stumbling. Langebecks Arch Surg. 389: 53-59, 2004.
[CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Birnbaum K, Parndorf T. Finite element model of the proximal femur under consideration of the hip centralizing forces of the iliotibial tract. Clin
Biomech.26: 58-64, 2011.
[CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Bonnaire F, Lein T, Bula P. Trochanteric femoral fractures: Anatomy, biomechanics and choice of implant. Unfallchirurg. 114: 491-500, 2011.
[CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Couteau B, Hobatho MC, Darmana R, Bringola JC, Arlaud JY. Finite element modeling of the vibrational behaviour of the human femur using CT-based
individualized geometrical and material properties. J Biomech. 31: 383-386, 1998.
[CrossRef]
Fuchtmeier B, Gebhard F, Lenich A. Complications after pertrochanteric fractures. Unfallchirurg. 114: 479-484, 2011.
[PubMed]
Guven M, Yavuz U, Kadioglu B. Importance of screw position in intertrochanteric femoral fractures treated by dynamic hip screw. Orthop Traumatol Surg
Res. 96: 21-27, 2010.
[CrossRef]
Helgason B, Perilli E, Schileo E, Taddei F, Brynjolfsson S, Viceconti M. Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: A
literature review. Clin Biomech. 23: 135-146, 2008.
[CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Hrubina M, Skotak M, Behounek J. Complications of dynamic hip screw treatment for proximal femoral fractures. Acta Chir Orthop Traum Czech. 77:
395-401, 2010.
[PubMed]
Hsueh KK, Fang CK, Chen CM, Su YP, Wu HF, Chiu FY. Risk factors in cutout of sliding hip screw in intertrochanteric fractures: an evaluation of 937
patients. Int Orthop. 34: 1273-1276, 2010.
[CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Ito M, Nakata T, Nishida A, Uetani M. Age-related changes in bone density, geometry and biomechanical properties of the proximal femur: CT-based 3D
hip structure analysis in normal postmenopausal women. Bone. 48: 627-630, 2011.
[CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Keyak J, Falkinstein Y. Comparison of in situ and in vitro CT scan-based finite element model predictions of proximal femoral fracture
load. Medic Eng Physic. 25: 781-787, 2003.
[CrossRef]
Kopp L, Edelman K, Obruba P, Prochazka B, Blstakova K, Dzupa V. Mortality risc factors in the elderly with proximal femoral fracture treated
surgically. Acta Chir Orthop Traum Czech. 76: 41-46, 2009.
[PubMed]
Krischak G, Durselen L, Roderer G. Treatment of peritrochanteric fractures. Biomechanical considerations. Unfallchirurg. 114: 485-490, 2011.
[CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Malkus T, Vaculik J, Dungl P, Majernicek M. Problems in intertrochanteric fractures. Ortopedie (in Czech). 3: 274-282, 2009.
Rohlmann A, Mossner U, Bergmann G, Kolbel R. Finite-element analysis and experimental investigation of stresses in a femur. J Biomed Eng. 4: 241-246,
1982.
[CrossRef]
Vaculik J, Malkus T, Majernicek M, Podskubka A, Dungl P. Incidence of proximal femoral fractures. Ortopedie (in Czech). 1: 62-68, 2007.
Viceconti M, Olsen S, Nolte LP, Burton K. Extracting clinically relevant data from finite element situations. Clin Biomech. 20: 451-454, 2005.
[CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Wirtz DC, Pandorf T, Redermacher K. Conception and realization of a physiological justified anisotropic finite-element model of the proximal femur. Z
Orthop. 136: A121-A122, 1998.
|
CITED
0
|
