Biomechanical study of a biplanar double support screw (BDSF) technique based on Pauwels angle in femoral neck fractures: finite element analysis

Zhongjian Tang, Yazhong Zhang, Shaolong Huang, Zhexi Zhu, Chengqiang Zhou, Ziqiang Zhu, Yunqing Wang, Bin Wang
{"title":"Biomechanical study of a biplanar double support screw (BDSF) technique based on Pauwels angle in femoral neck fractures: finite element analysis","authors":"Zhongjian Tang, Yazhong Zhang, Shaolong Huang, Zhexi Zhu, Chengqiang Zhou, Ziqiang Zhu, Yunqing Wang, Bin Wang","doi":"10.3389/fbioe.2024.1358181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The objective of the present study is to conduct a comparative analysis of the biomechanical advantages and disadvantages associated with a biplanar double support screw (BDSF) internal fixation device.Two distinct femoral neck fracture models, one with a 30° angle and the other with a 70° angle, were created using a verified and effective finite element model. Accordingly, a total of eight groups of finite element models were utilized, each implanted with different configurations of fixation devices, including distal screw 150° BDSF, distal screw 165° BDSF, 3 CLS arranged in an inverted triangle configuration, and 4 CLS arranged in a “α” configuration. Subsequently, the displacement and distribution of Von Mises stress (VMS) in the femur and internal fixation device were assessed in each fracture group under an axial load of 2100 N.At Pauwels 30° Angle, the femur with a 150°-BDSF orientation exhibited a maximum displacement of 3.17 mm, while the femur with a 165°-BDSF orientation displayed a maximum displacement of 3.13 mm. When compared with the femoral neck fracture model characterized by a Pauwels Angle of 70°, the shear force observed in the 70° model was significantly higher than that in the 30° model. Conversely, the stability of the 30° model was significantly superior to that of the 70° model. Furthermore, in the 70° model, the BDSF group exhibited a maximum femur displacement that was lower than both the 3CCS (3.46 mm) and 4CCS (3.43 mm) thresholds.The biomechanical properties of the BDSF internal fixation device are superior to the other two hollow screw internal fixation devices. Correspondingly, superior biomechanical outcomes can be achieved through the implementation of distal screw insertion at an angle of 165°. Thus, the BDSF internal fixation technique can be considered as a viable closed reduction internal fixation technique for managing femoral neck fractures at varying Pauwels angles.","PeriodicalId":508781,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology","volume":"63 37","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1358181","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective of the present study is to conduct a comparative analysis of the biomechanical advantages and disadvantages associated with a biplanar double support screw (BDSF) internal fixation device.Two distinct femoral neck fracture models, one with a 30° angle and the other with a 70° angle, were created using a verified and effective finite element model. Accordingly, a total of eight groups of finite element models were utilized, each implanted with different configurations of fixation devices, including distal screw 150° BDSF, distal screw 165° BDSF, 3 CLS arranged in an inverted triangle configuration, and 4 CLS arranged in a “α” configuration. Subsequently, the displacement and distribution of Von Mises stress (VMS) in the femur and internal fixation device were assessed in each fracture group under an axial load of 2100 N.At Pauwels 30° Angle, the femur with a 150°-BDSF orientation exhibited a maximum displacement of 3.17 mm, while the femur with a 165°-BDSF orientation displayed a maximum displacement of 3.13 mm. When compared with the femoral neck fracture model characterized by a Pauwels Angle of 70°, the shear force observed in the 70° model was significantly higher than that in the 30° model. Conversely, the stability of the 30° model was significantly superior to that of the 70° model. Furthermore, in the 70° model, the BDSF group exhibited a maximum femur displacement that was lower than both the 3CCS (3.46 mm) and 4CCS (3.43 mm) thresholds.The biomechanical properties of the BDSF internal fixation device are superior to the other two hollow screw internal fixation devices. Correspondingly, superior biomechanical outcomes can be achieved through the implementation of distal screw insertion at an angle of 165°. Thus, the BDSF internal fixation technique can be considered as a viable closed reduction internal fixation technique for managing femoral neck fractures at varying Pauwels angles.
基于 Pauwels 角的双平面双支撑螺钉 (BDSF) 技术在股骨颈骨折中的生物力学研究:有限元分析
本研究的目的是对双平面双支撑螺钉(BDSF)内固定装置的生物力学优缺点进行比较分析。我们使用经过验证的有效有限元模型创建了两种不同的股骨颈骨折模型,一种是 30° 角,另一种是 70° 角。因此,共使用了八组有限元模型,每组模型都植入了不同配置的固定装置,包括远端螺钉 150° BDSF、远端螺钉 165° BDSF、3 个倒三角形配置的 CLS 和 4 个 "α "配置的 CLS。随后,在2100牛顿的轴向载荷下,对各骨折组的股骨和内固定装置的位移和冯米斯应力(VMS)分布进行了评估。在Pauwels 30°角时,150°-BDSF方向的股骨显示出3.17毫米的最大位移,而165°-BDSF方向的股骨显示出3.13毫米的最大位移。与波维尔斯角为 70°的股骨颈骨折模型相比,在 70°模型中观察到的剪切力明显高于在 30°模型中观察到的剪切力。相反,30° 模型的稳定性明显优于 70° 模型。此外,在 70° 模型中,BDSF 组的股骨最大位移量低于 3CCS 临界值(3.46 mm)和 4CCS 临界值(3.43 mm)。相应地,通过将远端螺钉以 165° 的角度插入,可以获得更好的生物力学效果。因此,BDSF 内固定技术可被视为一种可行的闭合复位内固定技术,可用于处理不同 Pauwels 角度的股骨颈骨折。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信