Advertisement

Finite element analysis of different medial fixation strategies in double-plate osteosynthesis for AO type 33-C2 fractures

Published:January 04, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2022.01.003

      Highlights

      • Built three fixation models: medial support pad (MSP)+LISS, antero-medial plate (AMP)+LISS, and medial plate (MP)+LISS.
      • Model of MSP+LISS showed better biomechanical performance than the double-plate model, testified by finite element analysis.
      • With finite element analysis, medial plate (MP)+LISS provided better biomechanical support than antero-medial plate (AMP)+LISS.

      Abstract

      Objectives

      In this study, we evaluated the biomechanical characteristics of different locations of medial fixation strategies in double-plate osteosynthesis for fixing AO/ASIF type 33-C2 fractures by means of finite element analysis.

      Methods

      We used 3-matic software and UG-NX software to construct AO/ASIF type 33-C2 fractures and lateral less invasive stabilization system (LISS) plates, medial plates (MPs), and medial support pads (MSPs), respectively. Then, the LISS, MP and MSP were assembled into the fracture model separately to form three fixation models: MSP+LISS, anteromedial plate (AMP+LISS), and MP+LISS. In the next procedure, we performed finite element analysis using ANSYS software after meshing the elements of the models in HyperMesh 11.0 software. Loading conditions including lateral-medial four-point bending, anterior-posterior four-point bending, axial loading, and torsional loading were applied to evaluate the biomechanical advantages among the three fixation types. We observed the peak Von Mises Stress (VMS) value, maximum displacement, bending angle in the coronal plane of the fracture, and torsional angle of the fracture to assess the degree of plate deformation and fixation stability.

      Results

      Our results showed that in both lateral-medial four-point bending and anterior-posterior four-point bending, the calculations of MP+LISS were marginally better than those of AMP+LISS. However, with the action of axial loading and torsional loading, the deformation of MP+LISS was distinctly smaller than that of AMP+LISS, and the fixation stability of MP+LISS was also prominently better. Under lateral-medial four-point bending, the VMS on the lateral plate of MSP+LISS (59.977 MPa) was approximately half of the two double-plate models. Under anterior and posterior four-point bending, the 38.209 MPa peak VMS of MSP+LISS was still superior to the other two double-plate models. Under torsional loading, the peak VMS (347.75 MPa), the maximum torsional angle of the femoral head (7.852 °), and the torsional angle of fracture (0.036 °) of MSP+LISS preceded those of the other two models. However, under axial loading, the peak VMS (76.376 MPa) and the maximum displacement (3.1798 mm) of MSP+LISS were slightly higher than those of MP+LISS.

      Conclusion

      The MSP+LISS model showed better biomechanical performance than the double-plate models, which might be an effective solution for the treatment of comminuted distal femur fractures.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Injury
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Martinet O, Cordey J, Harder Y, Maier A, Bühler M, Barraud GE. The epidemiology of fractures of the distal femur. Int. J. Care Injured. 2000;31:S-C62–63.

      2. Marsh J, Slongo T, Agel J, Broderick J, Creevey W, DeCoster T, et al. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium - 2007: orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J. Orthop. Trauma. 2007;21: S1–S133.

      3. Brumback R, UwagieEro S, Lakatos R, Poka A, Bathon G, Burgess A, et al. Intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures. Part II: fracture-healing with static interlocking fixation. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 1988;70(10): 1453–62.

      4. Gardner M, Boraiah S, Helfet D, Lorich D. Indirect medial reduction and strut support of proximal humerus fractures using an endosteal implant. J. Orthop. Trauma. 2008;22: 195–200.

      5. Meneghini R, Keyes B, Reddy K, Maar D. Modern retrograde intramedullary nails versus periarticular locked plates for supracondylar femur fractures after total knee arthroplasty. J. Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1478–81.

      6. Fulkerson E, Koval K, Preston C, Iesaka K, Kumar F, Egol K. Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures associated with cemented femoral stems: a biomechanical comparison of locked plating and conventional cable plates. Orthop. Trauma. 2006;20:89–93.

      7. Zlowodzki M, Williamson S, Zardiackas L, Kregor P. Biomechanical evaluation of the less invasive stabilization system and the 95-degree angled blade plate for the internal fixation of distal femur Fractures in human cadaveric bones with high bone mineral density. J. Trauma. 2006;60:836–40.

      8. Zhang J, Wei Y, Yin W, Shen Y, Cao S. Biomechanical and clinical comparison of single lateral plate and double plating of comminuted supracondylar femoral fractures. Acta Orthop. Belg. 2018;84:141–8.

      9. Bologna M, Claudio M, Shields K, Katz C, Salopek T, Westrick E. Dual plate fixation results in improved union rates in comminuted distal femur fractures compared to single plate fixation. J. Orthop. 2020;18:76–9.

      10. Zhang W, Li J, Zhang H, Wang M, Li L, Zhou J, et al. Biomechanical assessment of single LISS versus double-plate osteosynthesis in the AO type 33-C2 fractures: A finite element analysis. Int. J. Care Injured. 2018;49:2142–6.

      11. Park K, Oh C, Park I, Kim J, Lee J, Kim H.J.I. Additional fixation of medial plate over the unstable lateral locked plating of distal femur fractures: A biomechanical study. Injury. 2019;50:1593–8.

      12. Jazrawi L, Kummer F, Simon J, Bai B, Hunt S, Egol K, et al. New technique for treatment of unstable distal femur fractures by locked double-plating: case report and biomechanical evaluation. J. Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care. 2000;48:87–92.

      13. Goffin J, Pankaj P, Simpson A. The importance of lag screw position for the stabilization of trochanteric fractures with a sliding hip screw: a subject-specific finite element study. J. Orthop. Research. 2013;31:596–600.

      14. Perren S. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. The scientific basis of biological internal fixation: choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2002;84:1093–110.

      15. Weight M, Collinge C. Early results of the less invasive stabilization system for mechanically unstable fractures of the distal femur (AO/OTA types A2, A3, C2, and C3). Orthop. Trauma. 2004;18:503–8.

      16. Kubiak E, Fulkerson E, Strauss E, Egol K. The evolution of locked plates. J. Bone Jt Surg. 2006:189–200.

      17. Wähnert D, Hoffmeier K, Fröber R, Hofmann G, Mückley T.J.I. Distal femur fractures of the elderly–different treatment options in a biomechanical comparison. J. Bone Jt Surg. 2011;42:655–9.

      18. Zhang Y, Xing B, Hou X, Li Y, Li G, Han G, et al. Comparison of three methods of Müller type C2 and C3 distal femoral fracture repair. J. Int. Med. Res. 2021;49:3000605211015031.

        • Imam M.
        • Torieh A.
        • Matthana A.
        Double plating of intra-articular multifragmentary C3-type distal femoral fractures through the anterior approach.
        Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2018; 28: 121-130
      19. Metwaly R, Zakaria Z. Single-incision double-plating approach in the management of isolated, closed osteoporotic distal femoral fractures. Geriatr. Orthop. Surg. Rehabil. 2018;9:2151459318799856.

      20. Ehlinger M, Ducrot G, Adam P, Bonnomet F.J.O., Surgery T., Research. Distal femur fractures. Surgical techniques and a review of the literature. Orthop. Traumatol. Sur. Res. 2013;99:353–60.

      21. Koval K, Kummer F, Bharam S, Chen D, Halder S. Distal femoral fixation: a laboratory comparison of the 95 degrees plate, antegrade and retrograde inserted reamed intramedullary nails. J. Orthop. Trauma. 1996;10:378–82.

      22. Jiang Y, Guo Y, Meng Y, Zhu L, Chen A.J.I. A report of a novel technique: The comprehensive fibular autograft with double metal locking plate fixation (cFALP) for refractory post-operative diaphyseal femur fracture non-union treatment. Int. J. Care Injured. 2016;47:2307–11.

      23. Lu J, Guo S, Wang Q, Sheng J, Tao S. Research. J-bone graft with double locking plate: a symphony of mechanics and biology for atrophic distal femoral non-union with bone defect. J. Orthop. Surgery and Research 2020;15:144.