单平面与双平面股骨远端外侧开口楔形截骨技术在内侧铰链骨折风险方面的生物力学比较。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Journal of Knee Surgery Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-19 DOI:10.1055/a-2232-4971
Cem Yıldırım, Mehmet Demirel, Mehmet Ekinci, Simge Öztürk, Süreyya Ergün Bozdağ
{"title":"单平面与双平面股骨远端外侧开口楔形截骨技术在内侧铰链骨折风险方面的生物力学比较。","authors":"Cem Yıldırım, Mehmet Demirel, Mehmet Ekinci, Simge Öztürk, Süreyya Ergün Bozdağ","doi":"10.1055/a-2232-4971","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The effect of osteotomy type on the initial stiffness of the bone-implant construct in lateral opening-wedge distal femoral osteotomy (LOWDFO) using a uniplanar compared with a biplanar technique has been investigated. However, no study has explored the biomechanical risk factors for medial hinge fracture. This study aimed to compare the biomechanical strength of uniplanar versus biplanar LOWDFO regarding the risk for medial hinge fracture during gap opening. Twelve composite femora were divided into two groups (six in each group) based on the distal femoral osteotomy technique: uniplanar versus biplanar LOWDFO. All LOWDFO models were subjected to incremental static loading. The gap distance was expanded by 1 mm, and displacement values were recorded as <i>anterior and posterior gap distances (mm)</i>. <i>The average force values</i> of all samples <i>at certain gap distances</i> were recorded, and <i>the head distance</i> was measured. The uniplanar group had higher load values than the biplanar group at all anterior gap distances. These differences were only significant at 2- and 3-mm gap distances (<i>p</i> = 0.025 and 0.037). At all posterior gap distances, the uniplanar group had higher load values than the biplanar group, but these differences only reached statistical significance at 2 mm (<i>p</i> = 0.037). Both groups had similar anterior, posterior, and average gap distances (<i>p</i> = 0.75, 0.522, 0.873). The uniplanar group had a higher head insertion distance (15.3 ± 5.7) than the biplanar group (14.7 ± 2.9), but it was not significant (<i>p</i> = 0.87). The uniplanar group had a lower average load before medial hinge fracture (46.41 ± 13.91 N) than the biplanar group (54.92 ± 31.94, <i>p</i> = 0.81). The biplanar group had an average maximum load value of 64.18 ± 25.6 N, while the uniplanar group had 57.90 ± 12.21 N (<i>p</i> = 0.81). This study revealed that the biplanar osteotomy technique allows a wider opening wedge gap with less risk of a medial hinge fracture than uniplanar LOWDFO.Level of evidence was level 3, case-control series.</p>","PeriodicalId":48798,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Knee Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"623-630"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biomechanical Comparison of Uniplanar versus Biplanar Lateral Opening-wedge Distal Femoral Osteotomy Techniques in Terms of Risk for Medial Hinge Fracture.\",\"authors\":\"Cem Yıldırım, Mehmet Demirel, Mehmet Ekinci, Simge Öztürk, Süreyya Ergün Bozdağ\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2232-4971\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The effect of osteotomy type on the initial stiffness of the bone-implant construct in lateral opening-wedge distal femoral osteotomy (LOWDFO) using a uniplanar compared with a biplanar technique has been investigated. However, no study has explored the biomechanical risk factors for medial hinge fracture. This study aimed to compare the biomechanical strength of uniplanar versus biplanar LOWDFO regarding the risk for medial hinge fracture during gap opening. Twelve composite femora were divided into two groups (six in each group) based on the distal femoral osteotomy technique: uniplanar versus biplanar LOWDFO. All LOWDFO models were subjected to incremental static loading. The gap distance was expanded by 1 mm, and displacement values were recorded as <i>anterior and posterior gap distances (mm)</i>. <i>The average force values</i> of all samples <i>at certain gap distances</i> were recorded, and <i>the head distance</i> was measured. The uniplanar group had higher load values than the biplanar group at all anterior gap distances. These differences were only significant at 2- and 3-mm gap distances (<i>p</i> = 0.025 and 0.037). At all posterior gap distances, the uniplanar group had higher load values than the biplanar group, but these differences only reached statistical significance at 2 mm (<i>p</i> = 0.037). Both groups had similar anterior, posterior, and average gap distances (<i>p</i> = 0.75, 0.522, 0.873). The uniplanar group had a higher head insertion distance (15.3 ± 5.7) than the biplanar group (14.7 ± 2.9), but it was not significant (<i>p</i> = 0.87). The uniplanar group had a lower average load before medial hinge fracture (46.41 ± 13.91 N) than the biplanar group (54.92 ± 31.94, <i>p</i> = 0.81). The biplanar group had an average maximum load value of 64.18 ± 25.6 N, while the uniplanar group had 57.90 ± 12.21 N (<i>p</i> = 0.81). This study revealed that the biplanar osteotomy technique allows a wider opening wedge gap with less risk of a medial hinge fracture than uniplanar LOWDFO.Level of evidence was level 3, case-control series.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48798,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Knee Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"623-630\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Knee Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2232-4971\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Knee Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2232-4971","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在股骨远端外侧开刃截骨术(LOWDFO)中,采用单平面技术与双平面技术相比,截骨类型对骨植入结构初始刚度的影响已得到研究。然而,还没有研究探讨过内侧铰链骨折的生物力学风险因素。本研究旨在比较单平面与双平面 LOWDFO 在打开间隙时内侧铰链骨折风险方面的生物力学强度。根据股骨远端截骨技术:单平面与双平面 LOWDFO,将 12 个复合股骨分为两组(每组 6 个)。所有 LOWDFO 模型均承受增量静态加载。间隙距离扩大 1 毫米,位移值记录为前后间隙距离(毫米)。记录所有样本在特定间隙距离下的平均力值,并测量头部距离。在所有前间隙距离上,单平面组的负荷值均高于双平面组。这些差异仅在 2 毫米和 3 毫米间隙距离上具有显著性(p = 0.025 和 0.037)。在所有后间隙距离上,单平面组的载荷值均高于双平面组,但这些差异仅在 2 毫米处达到统计学意义(p = 0.037)。两组的前、后和平均间隙距离相似(p = 0.75、0.522、0.873)。单平面组的头插入距离(15.3 ± 5.7)高于双平面组(14.7 ± 2.9),但差异不显著(p = 0.87)。单平面组内侧铰链骨折前的平均负荷(46.41 ± 13.91 N)低于双平面组(54.92 ± 31.94)(P = 0.81)。双平面组的平均最大负荷值为 64.18 ± 25.6 N,而单平面组为 57.90 ± 12.21 N(p = 0.81)。这项研究表明,与单平面 LOWDFO 相比,双平面截骨技术可以获得更宽的楔形间隙,内侧铰链骨折的风险更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Biomechanical Comparison of Uniplanar versus Biplanar Lateral Opening-wedge Distal Femoral Osteotomy Techniques in Terms of Risk for Medial Hinge Fracture.

The effect of osteotomy type on the initial stiffness of the bone-implant construct in lateral opening-wedge distal femoral osteotomy (LOWDFO) using a uniplanar compared with a biplanar technique has been investigated. However, no study has explored the biomechanical risk factors for medial hinge fracture. This study aimed to compare the biomechanical strength of uniplanar versus biplanar LOWDFO regarding the risk for medial hinge fracture during gap opening. Twelve composite femora were divided into two groups (six in each group) based on the distal femoral osteotomy technique: uniplanar versus biplanar LOWDFO. All LOWDFO models were subjected to incremental static loading. The gap distance was expanded by 1 mm, and displacement values were recorded as anterior and posterior gap distances (mm). The average force values of all samples at certain gap distances were recorded, and the head distance was measured. The uniplanar group had higher load values than the biplanar group at all anterior gap distances. These differences were only significant at 2- and 3-mm gap distances (p = 0.025 and 0.037). At all posterior gap distances, the uniplanar group had higher load values than the biplanar group, but these differences only reached statistical significance at 2 mm (p = 0.037). Both groups had similar anterior, posterior, and average gap distances (p = 0.75, 0.522, 0.873). The uniplanar group had a higher head insertion distance (15.3 ± 5.7) than the biplanar group (14.7 ± 2.9), but it was not significant (p = 0.87). The uniplanar group had a lower average load before medial hinge fracture (46.41 ± 13.91 N) than the biplanar group (54.92 ± 31.94, p = 0.81). The biplanar group had an average maximum load value of 64.18 ± 25.6 N, while the uniplanar group had 57.90 ± 12.21 N (p = 0.81). This study revealed that the biplanar osteotomy technique allows a wider opening wedge gap with less risk of a medial hinge fracture than uniplanar LOWDFO.Level of evidence was level 3, case-control series.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: The Journal of Knee Surgery covers a range of issues relating to the orthopaedic techniques of arthroscopy, arthroplasty, and reconstructive surgery of the knee joint. In addition to original peer-review articles, this periodical provides details on emerging surgical techniques, as well as reviews and special focus sections. Topics of interest include cruciate ligament repair and reconstruction, bone grafting, cartilage regeneration, and magnetic resonance imaging.
×
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