In vitro comparison of resistance to implant failure in unstable trochanteric fractures fi xed with intramedullary single screw versus double screw device

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Rastogi, Amit
dc.contributor.author GR, Arun
dc.contributor.author Singh, Vakil
dc.contributor.author and et. al.
dc.date.accessioned 2020-03-17T07:32:26Z
dc.date.available 2020-03-17T07:32:26Z
dc.date.issued 2014-06
dc.identifier.issn 00195413
dc.identifier.uri http://localhost:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/778
dc.description.abstract Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the resistance of intramedullary single screw device (Gamma nail) and double screw device proximal femoral nail (PFN) in unstable trochanteric fractures in terms of the number of cycles sustained, subsidence and implant failure in an axial loading test in cadaveric femora. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted on 18 dry cadaveric femoral specimens, 9 of these were implanted with a Gamma nail and 9 with PFN. There was no significant difference found in average dual energy X-ray absorptiometry value between both groups. The construct was made unstable (AO type 31A3.3) by removing a standard sized posteromedial wedge. These were tested on a cyclic physiological loading machine at 1 cycle/s with a load of 200 kg. The test was observed for 50,000 loading cycles or until implant failure, whichever occurred earlier. Peak displacements were measured and analysis was done to determine construct stiffness and gap micromotion in axial loading. Result: It was observed that there was statistically significant difference in terms of displacement at the fracture gap and overall construct stiffness of specimens of both groups. PFN construct group showed a mean subsidence of 1.02 mm and Gamma nail construct group showed mean subsidence of 2.36 mm after cycling. The average stiffness of Gamma nail group was 62.8 8.4 N/mm which was significantly lower than average stiffness of the PFN group (80.4 5.9 N/mm) (P = 0.03). In fatigue testing, 1 out of 9 PFN bone construct failed, while 5 of 9 Gamma nail bone construct failed. Conclusion: When considering micromotion (subsidence) and incidence of implant/screw failure, double screw device (PFN) had statistically significant lower micromotion across the fracture gap with axial compression and lower incidence of implant failure. Hence, double screw device (PFN) construct had higher stability compared to single screw device (GN) in an unstable trochanteric fracture femur model. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Medknow Publications en_US
dc.subject Cyclic loading en_US
dc.subject Gamma nail en_US
dc.subject proximal femoral nail en_US
dc.subject subsidence en_US
dc.title In vitro comparison of resistance to implant failure in unstable trochanteric fractures fi xed with intramedullary single screw versus double screw device en_US
dc.type Article en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search in IDR


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account