• O Fuad Oken, Zafer Soydan, A Ozgur Yildirim, Murat Gulcek, Korhan Ozlu, and Ahmet Ucaner.
• Ankara Numune Education & Research Hospital, Department of 1st Orthopedics & Traumatology Clinic, Turkey. fuadoken@yahoo.com
• Injury. 2011 Oct 1;42(10):1077-83.

AimTo establish whether the modified anatomic plate (MAP) performs as well as the anatomic plate (AP), dynamic hip screw (DHS) and proximal femoral nail (PFN) from a biomechanical perspective.Materials And MethodsThe, AP, MAP, DHS and PFN were assessed using finite element (FE) methods and biomechanical tests. A solid model was created based on the fracture lines and results were assessed using analyses of variance.Main Outcome MeasurementsIndependent variables were the implants (n=4) and axial loads: 0-1000 Newton (N) in 100 N increments. Dependent variables were loads at the intertrochanteric fracture line as measured by load cells.ResultsAxial loads ≤400 N generated significantly (p<0.05) greater stress at the fracture line in both the FE model and biomechanical settings: the PFN generated the highest forces at the fracture line followed by the AP, MAP and DHS. For axial loads ≥400 N, the AP and DHS generated nonsignificant (p>0.5) lower forces (almost 50% less) compared with the MAP and PFN. At 1000 N, the DHS generated the highest (p<0.05) load at the fracture line.ConclusionThe biomechanical features of the MAP were similar to those of the PFN. The MAP generated optimal loads at both the fracture site and the proximal femur. FE methods and biomechanical tests revealed that the MAP is associated with both intra- and extra-medullary fixation features, even though the load was applied as an extramedullary stimulus.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

20 keywords...

hide…