Biomechanical comparison of a 2 and 3 proximal screw-configured antegrade piriformis intramedullary nail with a trochanteric reconstruction nail in an unstable subtrochanteric fracture model

Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 337-341

  Fissel, Brian ^a   Moed, Berton R ^a   Bledsoe, J Gary ^a,b  

^a SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Saint Louis University   (United States)

Author keywords

Biomechanical model; Intramedullary nailing; Proximal femur fracture; Subtrochanteric femus fracture

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOCHEMICAL EQUIPMENT; COMPRESSION; FEMUR NECK; FEMUR SUBTROCHANTERIC FRACTURE; INTRAMEDULLARY NAIL; MATERIALS TESTING; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; POST HOC ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RIGIDITY;

BONE NAILS; BONE SCREWS; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FRACTURE FIXATION, INTRAMEDULLARY; HIP FRACTURES; HUMANS; MATERIALS TESTING; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PLIABILITY;

EID: 43049118262     PISSN: 08905339     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e318172c7f4     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Koch JC. The laws of bone architecture. Am J Anat. 1917;21:177-298.
2. Alho A, Ekeland A, Stromsoe K. Subtrochanteric femoral fractures treated with locked intramedullary nails. Experience from 31 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 1991;62:573-576.
3. Aronoff PM, Davis PM Jr, Wickstrom JK. Intramedullary nail fixation treatment of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Trauma. 1971;11:637-650.
4. Kinast C, Bolhofner BR, Mast JW, et al. Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur: results of treatment with the 95 degree condylar blade-plate. Clin Orthop. 1989;238:122-130.
5. Pankovich AM, Tarabishy IE. Ender nailing of intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint SurgAm. 1980;62:635-645.
6. Velasco RU, Comfort TH. Analysis of treatment problems in subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Trauma. 1978;18:513-523.
7. Wile PB, Panjabi MM, Southwick WO. Treatment of subtrochanteric fractures with a high angle compression hip screw. Clin Orthop. 1983;175:72-78.
8. Wheeler D, Croy T, Woll T, et al. Comparison of reconstruction nails for high subtrochanteric femur fracture fixation. Clin Orthop. 1997;338:231-239.
9. Robert C, Nawab A, Wang M, et al. Second generation intramedullary nailing of subtrochanteric femur fractures: A biomechanical study of fracture site motion. J Orthop Trauma. 2002;16:231-238.
10. th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2006:1827-1844.
11. Kraemer W, Hearn T, Powell J, et al. Fixation of segmental subtrochanteric fractures: A biomechanical study. Clin Orthop. 1996;332:71-79.
12. Pugh K, Morgan R, Gorczyca J, et al. A mechanical comparison of subtrochanteric femur fracture fixation. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12:324-329.
13. Tencer A, Johnson K, Johnston D, et al. A biomechanical comparison of various methods of stabilization of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Orthop Res. 1984;2:297-305.
14. Kinast C, Frigg R, Perren SM. Biomechanics of the interlocking nail. A study of the proximal interlock. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1990;109:197-204.
15. Ziran B, Sharkey N, Smith T, et al. Modified transverse locking nail fixation of proximal femoral fractures. Clin Orthop. 1997;339:82-91.
16. Wilkey KD, Mehserle W. Mechanical characteristics of eight intramedullary nailing systems. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12:177-185.
17. Szivek JA, Gealer RL. Technical note: comparison of the deformation response of synthetic and cadaveric femora during simulated one leg stance. J Appl Biomater. 1991;2:277-280.
18. Szivek JA, Gealer RL. Variability in the torsional and bending responses of a commercially available composite femur. J Appl Biomater. 1990;1:183-186.
19. Heiner AD, Brown TD. Structural properties of a new design of composite replicate femurs and tibias. J Biomech. 2001;34:773-781.