Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biomechanical effects of three different configurations in Salter Harris type 3 distal femoral epiphyseal fractures

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, the biomechanical effects of three different configurations (K-wire, stainless steel screws, and titanium screws), which are used for stabilizing Salter–Harris (SH) type 3 epiphyseal fracture of distal femur after reduction process, on the epiphyseal plate and fracture line have been investigated under axial, rotational, and bending forces to determine the most advantageous configuration. Three different configurations have been modeled using SolidWorks, and computer-aided numerical analyses were performed by finite-element analysis software. For each configuration, mesh process, boundary conditions, and material model have been applied in finite-element analysis software. In addition, von Mises stress values on growth of epiphyseal plate and K-wire have been calculated. According to the results obtained, it has been found particularly advantageous to use the fixation shape of configuration with screw. In addition, the fixation shape of K-wire configuration was found to be disadvantageous in the SH type 3 epiphyseal fractures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mann DC, Rajmaira S (1990) Distribution of physeal and nonphyseal fractures in 2650 long-bone fractures in children aged 0–16 years. J Pediatr Orthoped 10(6):713–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Peterson HA, Madhok RBJ, Ilstrup DM, Melton LJ (1994) Physeal fractures: Part 1. Epidemiology in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1979–1988. J Pediatr Orthoped 14(4):423–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Basener CJ, Mehlman CT, DiPasquale TG (2009) Growth disturbance after distal femoral growth plate fractures in children: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma 23(9):663–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Eid AM, Hafez MA (2002) Traumatic injuries of the distal femoral physis. Retrospective study on 151 cases. Injury 33(3):251–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dahl WJ, Silva S, Vanderhave KL (2014) Distal femoral physeal fixation: are smooth pins really safe? J Pediatr Orthoped 34(2):134–138. doi:10.1097/BPO.0000000000000083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Liu RW, Armstrong DG, Levine AD, Gilmore A, Thompson GH, Cooperman DR (2013) An anatomic study of the distal femoral epiphysis. J Pediatr Orthoped 33(7):743–749. doi:10.1097/BPO.0b013e31829d55bf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lombardo SJ, Harvey J Jr (1977) Fractures of the distal femoral epiphyses. Factors influencing prognosis: a review of thirty-four cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 59(6):742–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Herring JA (2002) Lower extremity injuries. In: Tachdjian’s pediatric orthopaedics. 3rd edn. W.B. Saunders Company, pp 2327–2334

  9. Zionts LE (2003) Fractures and dislocations about the knee. In: Skeletal trauma in children. 3rd edn. Saunders, pp 443–449

  10. III CRW (2014) Wheeless’ textbook of orthopaedics, orthopaedic references and discussions for physicians

  11. Arkader A, Warner WCJ, Horn BD, Shaw RN, Wells L (2007) Predicting the outcome of physeal fractures of the distal femur. J Pediatr Orthoped 27(6):703–708. doi:10.1097/BPO.0b013e3180dca0e5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Garcés GL, Mugica-Garay I, López-González Coviella N, Guerado E (1994) Growth-plate modifications after drilling. J Pediatr Orthop 14(2):225–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Janarv PM, Wikström B, Hirsch G (1998) The Influence of transphyseal drilling and tendon grafting on bone growth: an experimental study in the rabbit. J Pediatr Orthoped 18(2):149–154

    Google Scholar 

  14. Goffin JM, Pankaj P, Simpson AH (2013) The importance of lag screw position for the stabilization of trochanteric fractures with a sliding hip screw: a subject-specific finite element study. J Orthopaed Res 31(4):596–600. doi:10.1002/jor.22266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Atmaca H, Kesemenli C, Memişoğlu K, Özkan A, Celik Y (2013) Changes in the loading of tibial articular cartilage following medial meniscectomy: a finite element analysis study. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 21(12):2667–2673. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-2318-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. ANSYS Workbench 14.0 (2014) AnsysWorkbench Material Library

  17. Yuan-Kun T, Yau-Chia L, Wen-Jen Y, Li-Wen C, You-Yao H, Yung-Chuan C, Li-Chiang L (2009) Temperature rise simulation during a Kirschner pin drilling in bone. In: Bioinformatics and biomedical engineering, 2009. ICBBE 2009. 3rd international conference on, Beijing 11–13 June 2009. p 1–4. doi:10.1109/icbbe.2009.5163563

  18. Peña E, Calvo B, Martínez MA, Palanca D, Doblaré M (2005) Finite element analysis of the effect of meniscal tears and meniscectomies on human knee biomechanics. Clin Biomech 20(5):498–507. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.01.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Seyhan Fahri, Göksan SB (2002) Çocuk Kırıkları. In: Travmatoloji Ortopedik (ed) AK A. Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri, İstanbul, pp 89–101

  20. Salter RB, Czitrom A, RB W (1979) Fractures involving the distal femoral epiphyseal plate. In: Injury to the adolescent knee. Williams & Wilkins Co, Baltimore

  21. Garrett BR, Hoffman EB, Carrara H (2011) The effect of percutaneous pin fixation in the treatment of distal femoral physeal fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(5):689–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wall EJ, May MM (2012) Growth plate fractures of the distal femur. J Pediatr Orthoped 32:S40–S46. doi:10.1097/BPO.1090b1013e3182587086

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Hasan Ferdi Turgutlu Technology Faculty, Manisa Celal Bayar University, 45400, Manisa, Turkey

    Kadir Gok & Ahmet Murat Pinar

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Dumlupinar University, Campus of Evliya Celebi, 43100, Kutahya, Turkey

    Sermet Inal

  3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technology Faculty, Amasya University, 05000, Amasya, Turkey

    Arif Gok

Authors
  1. Kadir Gok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sermet Inal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arif Gok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmet Murat Pinar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kadir Gok.

Ethics declarations

Funding

There is no funding.

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Technical Editor: Estevam Las Casas.

Arif Gok: Senior Author.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gok, K., Inal, S., Gok, A. et al. Biomechanical effects of three different configurations in Salter Harris type 3 distal femoral epiphyseal fractures. J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 39, 1069–1077 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-016-0666-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-016-0666-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation