Stability of L-shaped and inverted triangle fixation assemblies in treating Pauwels type II femoral neck fracture: a comparative mechanical study
- 245 Downloads
The aim of our study is to compare the mechanical resistance of two screw configurations in fixating type II Pauwels femoral neck fractures.
Fifteen synthetic models of femur bones in young adults were divided into three equal groups: intact (G1), models with fixation of a 5.0-mm failure zone created in the posterior cortex of the femoral neck using an L-shaped screw arrangement (G2, n = 5), and models with an identical failure zone fixated using an inverted triangle assembly (G3, n = 5). Model strength (axial loading) and rotational deviation of the fragments were load-tested until a 5.0-mm displacement was reached (step 1) and then until failure, here considered as 10.0 mm displacement in G2 and G3 or femoral neck fracture in G1 (step 2).
In step 1, the mean resistance in G1 was 1593 N (standard deviation [SD] of 62 N); this value in G2 was 1261 N (SD 49 N) and in G3 was 1074 N (SD 153 N). During step 2, the value for G1 was 2247 N (SD 84 N), for G2 was 1895 N (SD 69 N), and for G3 was 1523 N (SD 280 N). G3 (the inverted triangle assembly) showed a significantly lower maximum load than the group using the L-shaped assembly (G2) and the control group (G1), which was significant using Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance (p = 0.002).
Under test conditions in synthetic bone, fixation using a L-shaped screw assembly provides greater mechanical resistance than an inverted triangle assembly.
KeywordsHip fractures Femoral neck Internal fracture fixation Bone screws Analysis of equipment failure Mechanical torsion L-shaped assembly L shaped
VG helped in protocol creation, manuscript creation, manuscript editing, data collection, and data analysis. RPP, DDA, and ABA contributed to protocol creation and data collection. WB, MG, and AF helped in manuscript editing and critical review. Senior author HAK contributed to manuscript editing and critical review.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
- 1.Asnis SE (1985) The guided screw system in intracapsular fractures of the hip. Contemp Orthop 10(6):33–42Google Scholar
- 6.Hollander M, Wolfe DA (1999) Nonparametric statistical methods, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, p 787Google Scholar
- 9.Scheck M (1980) The significance of posterior comminution in femoral neck fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 152:138–142Google Scholar
- 15.Walker E, Mukherjee DP, Ogden AL, Sadasivan KK, Albright JA (2007) A biomechanical study of simulated femoral neck fracture fixation by cannulated screws: effects of placement angle and number of screws. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 36:680–684Google Scholar
- 17.Zlowodzki M, Brink O, Switzer J, Wingerter S, Woodall J Jr, Petrisor BA, Kregor PJ, Bruinsma DR, Bhandari M (2008) The effect of shortening and varus collapse of the femoral neck on function after fixation of intracapsular fracture of the hip: a multi-centre cohort study. J Bone Jt Surg Br 90(11):1487–1494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Giordano V, Luz EM, Lima-Filho JCC, Serafim MAM, Amaral NP, Scappini W Jr (2006) Estudo eletromiográfico das forças atuantes no quadril em apoio monopodal: uma nova visão sobre o modelo de Koch. Rev Bras Ortop 41(7):278–282Google Scholar