Traditional and bionic dynamic hip screw fixation for the treatment of intertrochanteric fracture: a finite element analysis

  • Yunwei Cun
  • Chenhou Dou
  • Siyu Tian
  • Ming Li
  • Yanbin Zhu
  • Xiaodong Cheng
  • Wei ChenEmail author
Original Paper



The dynamic hip screw (DHS) is widely used for fixing intertrochanteric femur fractures. A porous bionic DHS was developed recently to avoid the stress concentration and risk of post-operative complications associated with titanium alloy DHSs. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of traditional titanium alloy, bionic titanium alloy, and bionic magnesium alloy DHS fixation for treatment of intertrochanteric fractures using finite element analysis.


A three-dimensional model of the proximal femur was established by human computed tomography images. An intertrochanteric fracture was created on the model, which was fixed using traditional and porous bionic DHS, respectively. The von Mises stress, maximum principal stress, and minimum principal stress were calculated to evaluate the effect of bone ingrowth on stress distribution of the proximal femur after fixation.


Stress concentration of the bionic DHS model was lower compared with traditional DHS fixation models. The von Mises stress, maximum principal stress, and minimum principal stress distributions of bionic magnesium alloy DHS models improved, along with simulation of the bone healing process and magnesium alloy degeneration, assumed to biodegrade completely 12 months post-operatively. The distribution of maximum principal stress in the secondary tension zone of the bionic DHS model was close to the intact bone. In the minimum principal stress, the region of minimum stress value less than − 10 MPa was significantly improved compared with traditional DHS models.


The bionic magnesium alloy DHS implant can improve the stress distribution of fractured bone close to that of intact bone while reducing the risk of post-operative complications associated with traditional internal fixations.


Intertrochanteric fracture Dynamic hip screw Bionic internal fixation Trabecular bone Stress distribution Finite element analysis 



We would like to thank Prof. Cheng-Kung Cheng and Dr. Yu-shu Lai for their assistance in the conduction of finite element analysis.

Authors’ contributions

W. C. and Y. C. designed the study. W. C. and Y. C. searched relevant studies. Y. C., M. L., Y. Z., X. C., and J.D. analyzed and interpreted the data. Y. C., C. D., and S. T. wrote the manuscript and contributed equally to this work. W. C. and Y.C. contributed most in the revision of this manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.


This study was supported by the Support Program for the Top Young Talents of Colleges and Universities of Hebei Province (Grant No.BJ2016035), the Hebei National Science Foundation-Outstanding Youth Foundation (Grant no. H2017206104) and the Support Program for the Top Young Talents for Hebei Province (Grant No. 2013-2018) . The funding source has no role in study design, conduction, data collection or statistical analysis.

Compliance with ethical standards

This study conforms to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki and has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from the individual participant included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Shankar N, Sathish Babu S, Viswanathan C (2018) Bone trabecular analysis of proximal femur radiographs for the detection of osteoporosis using anisotropic Morlet wavelet transform. Clust Comput:1–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stiehl JB, Jacobson D, Carrera G (2007) Morphological analysis of the proximal femur using quantitative computed tomography. Int Orthop 31:287–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang ZY, Dai KR (1994) The study of geometic morphology of calcar femorale and utility cavity of proximal femurs (Chin). Chin J Orthop 14:436–440Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gao LJ, Qiu SJ, Dai KR (1999) The microstructure and three dimensional structure of calcar femorale and the mechanics of its load capacity (Chin). Chin J Orthop 19:109–112Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang Q, Chen W, Liu HJ, Li ZY, Song ZH, Pan JS, Zhang YZ (2009) The role of the calcar femorale in stress distribution in the proximal femur. Orthop Surg 1(4):311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tetsunaga T, Fujiwara K, Endo H, Tetsunaga T, Shiota N, Sato T, Ozaki T (2017) Calcar femorale in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip secondary to developmental dysplasia. Clin Orthop Surg 9(4):413–419. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nawathe S, Nguyen BP, Barzanian N, Akhlaghpour H, Bouxsein ML, Keaveny TM (2015) Cortical and trabecular load sharing in the human femoral neck. J Biomech 48:816–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang JP, Yang TF, Zhong FL et al (2005) Finite element analysis of the biomechanics of human femur(Chin). Chin J Orthop Trauma 7:931–934Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kumar P, Rajnish RK, Sharma S et al (2019) Proximal femoral nailing is superior to hemiarthroplasty in AO/OTA A2 and A3 intertrochanteric femur fractures in the elderly: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Int Orthop.
  10. 10.
    Chen W, Lv H, Liu S, Liu B, Zhu Y, Chen X, Yang G, Liu L, Zhang T, Wang H, Yin B, Guo J, Zhang X, Li Y, Smith D, Hu P, Sun J, Zhang Y (2017) National incidence of traumatic fractures in China: a retrospective survey of 512,187 individuals. Lancet Glob Health 5(8):e807–e817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Omari A, Madsen CM, Lauritzen JB, Jørgensen HL, Vojdeman FJ (2019) Comorbidity and mortality after hip fracture in nineteen thousand six hundred and eighty two patients aged eighteen to sixty five years in Denmark from 1996 to 2012. Int Orthop 43(11):2621–2627. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prakash J, Keshari V, Chopra RK (2019) Experience of valgus osteotomy for neglected and failed osteosynthesis in fractures neck of femur. Int Orthop.
  13. 13.
    Civinini R, Paoli T, Cianferotti L, Cartei A, Boccaccini A, Peris A, Brandi ML, Rostagno C, Innocenti M (2019) Functional outcomes and mortality in geriatric and fragility hip fractures-results of an integrated, multidisciplinary model experienced by the “Florence hip fracture unit”. Int Orthop 43(1):187–192. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Forni C, Gazineo D, D’Alessandro F, Fiorani A, Morri M, Sabattini T, Ambrosi E, Chiari P (2019) Predictive factors for thirty day mortality in geriatric patients with hip fractures: a prospective study. Int Orthop 43(2):275–281. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siavashi B, Aalirezaei A, Moosavi M et al (2015) A comparative study between multiple cannulated screws and dynamic hip screw for fixation of femoral neck fracture in adults. Int Orthop 39(10):2069–2071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kasha S, Yalamanchili RK (2019) Management of subtrochanteric fractures by nail osteosynthesis: a review of tips and tricks. Int Orthop:1–9Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bartoníček J, Rammelt S (2014) The history of internal fixation of proximal femur fractures Ernst Pohl—the genius behind. Int Orthop 38(11):2421–2426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Güven M, Yavuz U, Kadioğlu B, Akman B, Kilinçoğlu V, Unay K, Altintaş F (2010) Importance of screw position in intertrochanteric femoral fractures treated by dynamic hip screw. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Qiu X, Cheng LL, Wang BJ, Liu BY, Yang L, Yu M, Gu G, Zhao DW (2018) Micro perfusion and quantitative analysis of the femoral head Intraosseous artery. Orthop Surg 10:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jin WJ, Dai LY, Cui YM et al (2005) Reliability of classification systems for intertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur in experienced orthopaedic surgeons. Injury 36:858–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Glassner PJ, Tejwani NC (2011) Failure of proximal femoral locking compression plate: a case series. J Orthop Trauma 25:76–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haidukewych GJ, Israel TA, Berry DJ (2001) Reverse obliquity fractures of the intertrochanteric region of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A:643–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Echeverry-Rendon M, Allain JP, Robledo SM, Echeverria F, Harmsen MC (2019) Coatings for biodegradable magnesium-based supports for therapy of vascular disease: a general view. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 102:150–163. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xue B, Liang B, Yuan G, Zhu L, Wang H, Lu Z, Xu Z (2019) A pilot study of a novel biodegradable magnesium alloy airway stent in a rabbit model. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 117:88–95. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sowmianarayanan S, Chandrasekaran A, Kumar RK (2008) Finite element analysis of a subtrochanteric fractured femur with dynamic hip screw, dynamic condylar screw, and proximal femur nail implants--a comparative study. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 222(1):117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tsuang FY, Hsieh YY, Kuo YJ, Chen CH, Lin FH, Chen CS, Chiang CJ (2017) Assessment of the suitability of biodegradable rods for use in posterior lumbar fusion: an in-vitro biomechanical evaluation and finite element analysis. PLoS One 12(11):e0188034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taheri NS, Blicblau AS, Singh M (2011) Comparative study of two materials for dynamic hip screw during fall and gait loading: titaniumalloy and stainless steel. J Orthop Sci 16(6):805–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang W, Zhai S, Han XP, Cui Y (2018) Comparative study of proximal femoral nail anti-rotation and dynamic hip screw in the unstable intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 98(5):357–361. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zeng X, Zhang N, Zeng D, Zhang L, Xu P, Cao L, Yu W, Zhan K, Zhang X (2017) Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus dynamic hip screw fixation for treatment of osteoporotic type 31-A1 intertrochanteric femoral fractures in elderly patients. J Int Med Res 45(3):1109–1123. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bridle SH, Patel AD, Bircher M, Calvert PT (1991) Fixation of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. A randomised prospective comparison of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73:330–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Adams CI, Robinson CM, Court-Brown CM, McQueen MM (2001) Prospective randomized controlled trial of an intramedullary nail versus dynamic screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Orthop Trauma 15:394–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Malizos KN, Bargiotas K, Papatheodorou L, Hantes M, Karachalios T (2008) Survivorship of monoblock trabecular metal cups in primary THA: midterm results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stiehl JB (2005) Trabecular metal in hip reconstructive surgery. Orthopedics. 28(7):662–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dieter M, Lindskog MD, Michael R, Baumgaertner MR (2004) Unstable IT hip fractures in the elderly. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 12(3):179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryThe Third Hospital of Hebei Medical UniversityShijiazhuangPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Biomechanics of Hebei ProvinceShijiazhuangPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations