Femoral calcar double-supported screw fixation enhances biomechanical stability in Pauwels type III femoral neck fractures: a comparative biomechanical study.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
American journal of translational research Pub Date : 2025-06-15 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.62347/OUBC8362
Xu-Chao Shi, Zhen-Tao Chu, Yi-Wen Yuan, Xiao-Long Xia, Wei-Long Li, Chuan-Bao Wang, Jiao-Jiao Hu
{"title":"Femoral calcar double-supported screw fixation enhances biomechanical stability in Pauwels type III femoral neck fractures: a comparative biomechanical study.","authors":"Xu-Chao Shi, Zhen-Tao Chu, Yi-Wen Yuan, Xiao-Long Xia, Wei-Long Li, Chuan-Bao Wang, Jiao-Jiao Hu","doi":"10.62347/OUBC8362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study proposed a novel fixation method - femoral calcar double-supported screw fixation (FCDSF) - and evaluated its biomechanical performance. The fixation's mechanical properties were assessed and compared with those of inverted triangular parallel cannulated screws (3CS) and biplane double-supported screw fixation (BDSF) for Pauwels type III femoral neck fractures (FNFs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifty-four synthetic femur models were allocated into three reduction groups simulating positive buttress, anatomical reduction, and negative buttress conditions. Each group was further divided into three subgroups (n = 6), fixed with FCDSF, 3CS, or BDSF. Torsional tests measured torque at the fracture site under 2° and 4° rotation. Load-to-failure tests were then conducted by applying continuous pressure until failure occurred, and the ultimate loads were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Under all reduction conditions, FCDSF demonstrated significantly greater torque at both rotation angles compared with 3CS (P < 0.05), while difference with BDSF was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). FCDSF showed superior load-bearing capacity over both BDSF and 3CS across all conditions (P < 0.05). In both the FCDSF and BDSF groups, positive buttress and anatomical reductions provided significantly better resistance to torsion and shear than negative buttress configurations (both P < 0.05), with no significant difference between the two (P > 0.05). In the 3CS group, only the positive buttress configuration showed a significant improvement over the negative buttress (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>FCDSF provides enhanced anti-shear and anti-rotational stability compared with 3CS in managing Pauwels type III FNFs. Negative buttress reduction should be avoided due to its inferior biomechanical performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":7731,"journal":{"name":"American journal of translational research","volume":"17 6","pages":"4445-4454"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12261154/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of translational research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62347/OUBC8362","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study proposed a novel fixation method - femoral calcar double-supported screw fixation (FCDSF) - and evaluated its biomechanical performance. The fixation's mechanical properties were assessed and compared with those of inverted triangular parallel cannulated screws (3CS) and biplane double-supported screw fixation (BDSF) for Pauwels type III femoral neck fractures (FNFs).

Methods: Fifty-four synthetic femur models were allocated into three reduction groups simulating positive buttress, anatomical reduction, and negative buttress conditions. Each group was further divided into three subgroups (n = 6), fixed with FCDSF, 3CS, or BDSF. Torsional tests measured torque at the fracture site under 2° and 4° rotation. Load-to-failure tests were then conducted by applying continuous pressure until failure occurred, and the ultimate loads were recorded.

Results: Under all reduction conditions, FCDSF demonstrated significantly greater torque at both rotation angles compared with 3CS (P < 0.05), while difference with BDSF was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). FCDSF showed superior load-bearing capacity over both BDSF and 3CS across all conditions (P < 0.05). In both the FCDSF and BDSF groups, positive buttress and anatomical reductions provided significantly better resistance to torsion and shear than negative buttress configurations (both P < 0.05), with no significant difference between the two (P > 0.05). In the 3CS group, only the positive buttress configuration showed a significant improvement over the negative buttress (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: FCDSF provides enhanced anti-shear and anti-rotational stability compared with 3CS in managing Pauwels type III FNFs. Negative buttress reduction should be avoided due to its inferior biomechanical performance.

股骨跟双支撑螺钉固定增强Pauwels III型股骨颈骨折的生物力学稳定性:一项比较生物力学研究。
目的:本研究提出了一种新的固定方法-股骨跟双支撑螺钉固定(FCDSF),并评价其生物力学性能。评估该固定物的力学性能,并与倒三角平行空心螺钉(3CS)和双翼双支撑螺钉固定(BDSF)治疗Pauwels III型股骨颈骨折(FNFs)的力学性能进行比较。方法:将54例人工股骨模型分为模拟正支撑、解剖复位和负支撑3组。每组进一步分为3个亚组(n = 6),分别用FCDSF、3CS或BDSF固定。扭转测试测量了2°和4°旋转下断裂部位的扭矩。然后通过施加持续压力直到发生故障来进行负载到失效测试,并记录极限负载。结果:在所有复位条件下,FCDSF在两个旋转角度上的扭矩均明显大于3CS (P < 0.05),而与BDSF的差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。在所有条件下,FCDSF的承载能力均优于BDSF和3CS (P < 0.05)。在FCDSF组和BDSF组中,正支撑和解剖复位的扭转和剪切抗力明显优于负支撑配置(P < 0.05),两者之间无显著差异(P < 0.05)。在3CS组中,只有正支撑配置比负支撑配置有显著改善(P < 0.05)。结论:与3CS相比,FCDSF在治疗Pauwels III型FNFs方面具有更强的抗剪切和抗旋转稳定性。由于其较差的生物力学性能,应避免负支撑复位。
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
American journal of translational research
American journal of translational research ONCOLOGY-MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
自引率
0.00%
发文量
552
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信