A biomechanical comparison of a locking plate, a nail, and a 95° angled blade plate for fixation of subtrochanteric femoral fractures

Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 334-340

  Forward, Daren P ^a   Doro, Christopher J ^a   O'Toole, Robert V ^a   Kim, Hyunchul ^b   Floyd, John C P ^a   Sciadini, Marcus F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

95 angled blade plate; cephalomedullary nail; locking plate; subtrochanteric femoral fractures

Indexed keywords

95 DEGREE ANGLED BLADE PLATE; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; BONE PLATE; CEPHALOMEDULLARY NAIL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMUR HEAD; FEMUR SUBTROCHANTERIC FRACTURE; FRACTURE FIXATION; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMPLANT; ORTHOPEDIC EQUIPMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROXIMAL FEMORAL LOCKING PLATE; WEIGHT BEARING;

BIOMECHANICS; BONE NAILS; BONE PLATES; FEMALE; FRACTURES, COMMINUTED; HIP FRACTURES; HUMANS; MALE; MATERIALS TESTING; TISSUE AND ORGAN HARVESTING; WEIGHT-BEARING;

EID: 84862806704     PISSN: 08905339     EISSN: 15312291     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3182254ea3     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Tencer AF, Johnson KD, Johnston DW, et al. A biomechanical comparison of various methods of stabilization of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Orthop Res. 1984;2:297-305.
2. Curtis MJ, Jinnah RH, Wilson V, et al. Proximal femoral fractures: a biomechanical study to compare intramedullary and extramedullary fixation. Injury. 1994;25:99-104.
3. Kummer FJ, Olsson O, Pearlman CA, et al. Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation of subtrochanteric fractures: a biomechanical study. Acta Orthop Scand. 1998;69:580-584.
4. Pugh KJ, Morgan RA, Gorczyca JT, et al. A mechanical comparison of subtrochanteric femur fracture fixation. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12:324-329.
5. Lundy DW, Acevedo JI, Ganey TM, et al. Mechanical comparison of plates used in the treatment of unstable subtrochanteric femur fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 1999;13:534-538.
6. Bergman GD, Winquist RA, Mayo KA, et al. Subtrochanteric fracture of the femur: fixation using the Zickel nail. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69: 1032-1040
7. [Erratum in J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70:152].
8. Floyd JC, O'Toole RV, Stall A, et al. Biomechanical comparison of proximal locking plates and blade plates for the treatment of comminuted subtrochanteric femoral fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2009;23:628-633.
9. Sims SH. Subtrochanteric femur fractures. Orthop Clin North Am. 2002; 33:113-126, viii.
10. Kinast C, Bolhofner BR, Mast JW, et al. Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur: results of treatment with the 95 degrees condylar blade-plate. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;238:122-130.
11. Ozsoy MH, Basarir K, Bayramoglu A, et al. Risk of superior gluteal nerve and gluteus medius muscle injury during femoral nail insertion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:829-834.
12. Bain GI, Zacest AC, Paterson DC, et al. Abduction strength following intramedullary nailing of the femur. J Orthop Trauma. 1997;11:93-97.
13. Brumback RJ, Wells JD, Lakatos R, et al. Heterotopic ossification about the hip after intramedullary nailing for fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:1067-1073.
14. Seinsheimer F. Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60:300-306.
15. Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intra-medullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;1:CD000093.
16. Perren SM. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures: the scientific basis of biological internal fixation: choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84: 1093-1110.
17. Koch JC. The laws of bone architecture. Am J Anat. 1917;21:177-298.
18. Denham RA. Hip mechanics. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1959;41:550-557.
19. Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Northfield MR, et al. Quantitative assessment of walking activity after total hip or knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:54-59.
20. Brien WW, Wiss DA, Becker V Jr, et al. Subtrochanteric femur fractures: a comparison of the Zickel nail, 95 degrees blade plate, and interlocking nail. J Orthop Trauma. 1991;5:458-464.
21. Yoo MC, Cho YJ, Kim KI, et al. Treatment of unstable peritrochanteric femoral fractures using a 95 degrees angled blade plate. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19:687-692.
22. Celebi L, Can M, Muratli HH, et al. Indirect reduction and biological internal fixation of comminuted subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. Injury. 2006;37:740-750.
23. Kregor PJ, Obremskey WT, Kreder HJ, et al. Evidence-Based Orthopaedic Trauma Working Group. Unstable pertrochanteric femoral fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19:63-66.
24. Hey-Groves EW. Ununited fractures with special reference to gunshot injuries and the use of bone grafting. Br J Surg. 1918-1919;203-247.
25. Rebuzzi E, Pannone A, Schiavetti S, et al. IMHS clinical experience in the treatment of peritrochanteric fractures: the results of a multicentric Italian study of 981 cases. Injury. 2002;33:407-412.
26. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM. Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;348:87-94.
27. Hardy DC, Descamps PY, Krallis P, et al. Use of an intramedullary hip-screw compared with a compression hip-screw with a plate for intertrochanteric femoral fractures: a prospective, randomized study of one hundred patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:618-630.