We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative biomechanical analysis of reconstruction and cephalomedullary nails in the treatment of osteoporotic subtrochanteric fractures.
Injury 2024 March 21
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the biomechanical properties of two types of intramedullary nails - reconstruction nails (RCN) and cephalomedullary nails (CMN) - each with different proximal fixations, in a model of an osteoporotic subtrochanteric femoral fracture. This study focused on assessing stiffness and load to failure of RCN and CMN nails to provide insight into their clinical applications in osteoporotic fracture treatments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten synthetic osteoporotic femoral models were used to generate a comminuted subtrochanteric fracture model. Five femurs were fixed using an RCN, and the remaining five were fixed using a CMN. The constructs were subjected to axial compression to measure their structural stiffness, load to failure, and failure modes.
RESULTS: The CMN group demonstrated a slightly higher load to failure (mean, 2250 N) than the RCN group (mean, 2100 N), which was statistically significant (p = 0.008). However, the stiffness in both groups was statistically similar (RCN, 250 N/mm; CMN, 255 N/mm; p = 0.69). Both groups showed a load to failure exceeding 1500 N, a typically exerted load on the femoral head by a 75 kg individual. The failure patterns differed, with CMN failures starting at the nail insertion area and RCN failures starting at the reconstruction screw area.
CONCLUSION: The RCN offers stiffness comparable to that of the CMN; although its load to failure is slightly lower than that of the CMN, it still exceeds the physiological tolerance limit. These findings suggest that the RCN is a viable alternative for treating osteoporotic subtrochanteric fractures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten synthetic osteoporotic femoral models were used to generate a comminuted subtrochanteric fracture model. Five femurs were fixed using an RCN, and the remaining five were fixed using a CMN. The constructs were subjected to axial compression to measure their structural stiffness, load to failure, and failure modes.
RESULTS: The CMN group demonstrated a slightly higher load to failure (mean, 2250 N) than the RCN group (mean, 2100 N), which was statistically significant (p = 0.008). However, the stiffness in both groups was statistically similar (RCN, 250 N/mm; CMN, 255 N/mm; p = 0.69). Both groups showed a load to failure exceeding 1500 N, a typically exerted load on the femoral head by a 75 kg individual. The failure patterns differed, with CMN failures starting at the nail insertion area and RCN failures starting at the reconstruction screw area.
CONCLUSION: The RCN offers stiffness comparable to that of the CMN; although its load to failure is slightly lower than that of the CMN, it still exceeds the physiological tolerance limit. These findings suggest that the RCN is a viable alternative for treating osteoporotic subtrochanteric fractures.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System: From History to Practice of a Secular Topic.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 5
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 March 27
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app