TR
EN
The biomechanical assessment of fixation methods in periprosthetic femur fractures
Abstract
Objective: The aim of our study was to compare the biomechanical properties of different fixation methods used in periprosthetic femur fractures.
Methods: We created sawbone models with Mallory Type 2 periprosthetic femur fractures. The periprosthetic fractures were fixed with cables, cables and strut graft, or cables and plates. The biomechanical properties of these three different fixation methods were compared with the intact femur, the intact femur with prosthesis and the femur with periprosthetic fracture without fixation.
Results: The periprosthetic fracture without fixation had a significantly lower yield point value than the periprosthetic fractures with fixation (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between the three different fixation methods of the periprosthetic fractures. The intact femur with a prosthesis showed statistically higher values than all three fixation methods of perioprosthetic fractures.
Conclusion: Mallory Type 2 periprosthetic fractures should be fixed. There is no difference among the fixation methods used in the study and none of them provide a stability equivalent to that of an intact femur with prosthesis.
Methods: We created sawbone models with Mallory Type 2 periprosthetic femur fractures. The periprosthetic fractures were fixed with cables, cables and strut graft, or cables and plates. The biomechanical properties of these three different fixation methods were compared with the intact femur, the intact femur with prosthesis and the femur with periprosthetic fracture without fixation.
Results: The periprosthetic fracture without fixation had a significantly lower yield point value than the periprosthetic fractures with fixation (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between the three different fixation methods of the periprosthetic fractures. The intact femur with a prosthesis showed statistically higher values than all three fixation methods of perioprosthetic fractures.
Conclusion: Mallory Type 2 periprosthetic fractures should be fixed. There is no difference among the fixation methods used in the study and none of them provide a stability equivalent to that of an intact femur with prosthesis.
Keywords
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
Health Care Administration
Journal Section
Research Article
Publication Date
September 14, 2011
Submission Date
March 7, 2014
Acceptance Date
-
Published in Issue
Year 2011 Volume: 45 Number: 4
APA
Gulsen, M., Karatosun, V., & Uyulgan, B. (2011). The biomechanical assessment of fixation methods in periprosthetic femur fractures. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, 45(4), 266-269. https://izlik.org/JA25JN57EH
AMA
1.Gulsen M, Karatosun V, Uyulgan B. The biomechanical assessment of fixation methods in periprosthetic femur fractures. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica. 2011;45(4):266-269. https://izlik.org/JA25JN57EH
Chicago
Gulsen, Mehmet, Vasfi Karatosun, and Bahadır Uyulgan. 2011. “The Biomechanical Assessment of Fixation Methods in Periprosthetic Femur Fractures”. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 45 (4): 266-69. https://izlik.org/JA25JN57EH.
EndNote
Gulsen M, Karatosun V, Uyulgan B (September 1, 2011) The biomechanical assessment of fixation methods in periprosthetic femur fractures. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 45 4 266–269.
IEEE
[1]M. Gulsen, V. Karatosun, and B. Uyulgan, “The biomechanical assessment of fixation methods in periprosthetic femur fractures”, Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 266–269, Sept. 2011, [Online]. Available: https://izlik.org/JA25JN57EH
ISNAD
Gulsen, Mehmet - Karatosun, Vasfi - Uyulgan, Bahadır. “The Biomechanical Assessment of Fixation Methods in Periprosthetic Femur Fractures”. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica 45/4 (September 1, 2011): 266-269. https://izlik.org/JA25JN57EH.
JAMA
1.Gulsen M, Karatosun V, Uyulgan B. The biomechanical assessment of fixation methods in periprosthetic femur fractures. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica. 2011;45:266–269.
MLA
Gulsen, Mehmet, et al. “The Biomechanical Assessment of Fixation Methods in Periprosthetic Femur Fractures”. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, vol. 45, no. 4, Sept. 2011, pp. 266-9, https://izlik.org/JA25JN57EH.
Vancouver
1.Mehmet Gulsen, Vasfi Karatosun, Bahadır Uyulgan. The biomechanical assessment of fixation methods in periprosthetic femur fractures. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica [Internet]. 2011 Sep. 1;45(4):266-9. Available from: https://izlik.org/JA25JN57EH