Positive medial cortical support versus anatomical reduction for trochanteric hip fractures: Finite element analysis and biomechanical testing

• Published in: Computer methods and programs in biomedicine Vol. 234; p. 107502
• Main Authors: Mao, Wei, Chang, Shi-min, Zhang, Ying-qi, Li, Yan, Du, Shou-chao, Hu, Sun-jun, Yang, Aolei, Zhou, Kai-hua
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Ireland Elsevier B.V 01.06.2023
• Subjects: Anatomical reduction; Biomechanical Phenomena; Biomechanical testing; Bone Plates; Bone Screws; Finite Element Analysis; Hip Fractures - diagnostic imaging; Hip Fractures - surgery; Humans; Positive medial cortical support; Unstable trochanteric hip fractures; Unstable trochanteric hip fractures; Positive medial cortical support; Anatomical reduction; Finite element analysis; Biomechanical testing
• ISSN: 0169-2607; 1872-7565; 1872-7565
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107502

•This study opens up the second thought of non-anatomical (over-reduction) technique.•Intentional use of the PMCS could attain higher mechanical stability than the AR.•A wider use of the PMCS technique may help to lower the reoperation rate of the UTHF. The anatomical reduction (AR) is usually considered the best option for fractures. Nevertheless, in unstable trochanteric hip fractures (UTHF), previous clinical reports found that the positive medial cortical support (PMCS, an over-reduction technique) attained higher mechanical stability, but this challenging clinical finding still needs experimental validation. This study constructed in-silico and biomechanical PMCS and AR models, with the use of the most clinically-representative geometry design of fracture models, the multi-directional design in FE analysis, and the subject-specific (osteoporotic) bone material properties, to make the models better mimic the actual condition in clinical settings. Then multiple performance variables (von-Mises stress, strain, integral axial stiffness, displacement, structural changes, etc.) were assessed to uncover details of integral and regional stability. Among in-silico comparison, PMCS models showed significantly lower maximum displacement than AR models, and the maximum von Mises stress of implants (MVMS-I) was significantly lower in PMCS models than in AR models (highest MVMS-I in –30°-A3-AR of 1055.80 ± 93.37 MPa). Besides, PMCS models had significantly lower maximum von Mises stress along fracture surfaces (MVMS-F) (highest MVMS-F in 30°-A2-AR of 416.40 ± 38.01 MPa). Among biomechanical testing comparison, PMCS models showed significantly lower axial displacement. Significantly lower change of neck-shaft angle (CNSA) was observed in A2-PMCS models. A fair amount of AR models converted into the obvious negative medial cortical support (NMCS) condition, whereas all PMCS models kept the PMCS condition. The results were also validated through comparison to previous clinical data. The PMCS is superior to the AR in the UTHF surgery. The current study opens up the second thought of the role of over-reduction technique in bone surgery.