A biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture

Abstract Background The treatment of Hoffa fractures is challenging, for which the ideal fixation and approach are still controversial. Osteosynthesis with plate or screws fixation in different trajectories have been described in previous literature. The purpose of this study was to compare the biom...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Shu-Hsin Yao, Wei-Ren Su, Kai-Lan Hsu, Yueh Chen, Chih-Kai Hong, Fa-Chuan Kuan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2020-07-01
Series:BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12891-020-03527-4
id doaj-f00c4db160824ee3be6f1b14abe3f535
record_format Article
spelling doaj-f00c4db160824ee3be6f1b14abe3f5352020-11-25T02:57:37ZengBMCBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders1471-24742020-07-012111610.1186/s12891-020-03527-4A biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a Letenneur type I Hoffa fractureShu-Hsin Yao0Wei-Ren Su1Kai-Lan Hsu2Yueh Chen3Chih-Kai Hong4Fa-Chuan Kuan5Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chia - Yi Christian HospitalDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung UniversityDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung UniversityDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sin Lau HospitalDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung UniversityDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung UniversityAbstract Background The treatment of Hoffa fractures is challenging, for which the ideal fixation and approach are still controversial. Osteosynthesis with plate or screws fixation in different trajectories have been described in previous literature. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical strength and stability of two types of screw trajectories used to stabilize displaced coronal fractures of the lateral femoral condyle. Methods Sixteen synthetic femurs (Sawbones Pacific Research Laboratories, Vashon, WA) were divided into two groups. A vertical osteotomy was performed to mimic a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture. Group A (n = 8) was fixed with screw in anteroposterior direction (A-P) screws. Group B (n = 8) was fixed with crossed screws. Both groups were tested with a nondestructive axial compression aligned with the femur axis. After that, 10,000 cyclic loading tests were applied to the specimen with a force ranging between 200 to 600 N, and the interfragmental displacement was recorded, respectively, after 10, 100, 1000 and 10,000 cycles. Finally, a destructive axial compression test was applied until catastrophic failure. Results There were no statistical between-group differences in regard to the average axial stiffness, interfragmental displacement, and ultimate failure load. The average axial stiffness of the A-P screw was comparable to that of the crossed screw (361 ± 113 N/mm vs. 379 ± 65 N/mm, p = 0.753). All specimens completed the entire cyclic loading test without catastrophic failure, and the interfragmental displacement after loading for 10,000 cycles was 1.36 ± 0.40 mm for the A-P screw and 1.29 ± 0.61 mm for the crossed screw, there were no statistical differences between the groups (p = 0.823). The average ultimate failure loads for the A-P and crossed screws were 1214 ± 127 N and 1109 ± 156 N, respectively (p = 0.172). Conclusions Based on our in vitro study, the crossed screws can provide comparable mechanical performance as traditional A-P screws in Hoffa fracture fixation. Considering the screws trajectories are commonly determined by the choice of surgical approach, the current study provides support from a biomechanical perspective for the application of crossed screws in direct lateral approach.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12891-020-03527-4Distal femur fractureHoffa fractureInternal fixation onBiomechanics
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Shu-Hsin Yao
Wei-Ren Su
Kai-Lan Hsu
Yueh Chen
Chih-Kai Hong
Fa-Chuan Kuan
spellingShingle Shu-Hsin Yao
Wei-Ren Su
Kai-Lan Hsu
Yueh Chen
Chih-Kai Hong
Fa-Chuan Kuan
A biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Distal femur fracture
Hoffa fracture
Internal fixation on
Biomechanics
author_facet Shu-Hsin Yao
Wei-Ren Su
Kai-Lan Hsu
Yueh Chen
Chih-Kai Hong
Fa-Chuan Kuan
author_sort Shu-Hsin Yao
title A biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture
title_short A biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture
title_full A biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture
title_fullStr A biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture
title_full_unstemmed A biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture
title_sort biomechanical comparison of two screw fixation methods in a letenneur type i hoffa fracture
publisher BMC
series BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
issn 1471-2474
publishDate 2020-07-01
description Abstract Background The treatment of Hoffa fractures is challenging, for which the ideal fixation and approach are still controversial. Osteosynthesis with plate or screws fixation in different trajectories have been described in previous literature. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical strength and stability of two types of screw trajectories used to stabilize displaced coronal fractures of the lateral femoral condyle. Methods Sixteen synthetic femurs (Sawbones Pacific Research Laboratories, Vashon, WA) were divided into two groups. A vertical osteotomy was performed to mimic a Letenneur type I Hoffa fracture. Group A (n = 8) was fixed with screw in anteroposterior direction (A-P) screws. Group B (n = 8) was fixed with crossed screws. Both groups were tested with a nondestructive axial compression aligned with the femur axis. After that, 10,000 cyclic loading tests were applied to the specimen with a force ranging between 200 to 600 N, and the interfragmental displacement was recorded, respectively, after 10, 100, 1000 and 10,000 cycles. Finally, a destructive axial compression test was applied until catastrophic failure. Results There were no statistical between-group differences in regard to the average axial stiffness, interfragmental displacement, and ultimate failure load. The average axial stiffness of the A-P screw was comparable to that of the crossed screw (361 ± 113 N/mm vs. 379 ± 65 N/mm, p = 0.753). All specimens completed the entire cyclic loading test without catastrophic failure, and the interfragmental displacement after loading for 10,000 cycles was 1.36 ± 0.40 mm for the A-P screw and 1.29 ± 0.61 mm for the crossed screw, there were no statistical differences between the groups (p = 0.823). The average ultimate failure loads for the A-P and crossed screws were 1214 ± 127 N and 1109 ± 156 N, respectively (p = 0.172). Conclusions Based on our in vitro study, the crossed screws can provide comparable mechanical performance as traditional A-P screws in Hoffa fracture fixation. Considering the screws trajectories are commonly determined by the choice of surgical approach, the current study provides support from a biomechanical perspective for the application of crossed screws in direct lateral approach.
topic Distal femur fracture
Hoffa fracture
Internal fixation on
Biomechanics
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12891-020-03527-4
work_keys_str_mv AT shuhsinyao abiomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT weirensu abiomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT kailanhsu abiomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT yuehchen abiomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT chihkaihong abiomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT fachuankuan abiomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT shuhsinyao biomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT weirensu biomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT kailanhsu biomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT yuehchen biomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT chihkaihong biomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
AT fachuankuan biomechanicalcomparisonoftwoscrewfixationmethodsinaletenneurtypeihoffafracture
_version_ 1724710210331738112