Helical blade vs telescoping lag screw for intertrochanteric fracture fixation.

The purpose of this study was to compare fixation stability and lag screw sliding characteristics between 2 different hip-nail lag screw designs, a telescoping screwbarrel and a solid helical blade. Simulated, unstable, 4-part intertrochanteric hip fractures were created in 6 pairs of cadaveric femurs. Each nail type was randomly assigned within each femur pair. Lag screw sliding and inferior and lateral head displacements were measured following an applied static load of 750 N. Measurements were obtained before, during, and after cyclical loading with 750 N for 105 cycles. Ultimate failure strength was determined. After considering inferior head displacements, no significant differences between the 2 screw designs were found. Mean head displacement for the helical screw was 2.18 mm, compared with 1.87 mm for the telescoping screw (P = .731). A significant difference in the amount of lateral movement of the lag screws was found, however. The helical lag screws had mean lateral sliding of 2.68 mm, compared with 0.25 mm for the telescoping screws (P = .007). Neither of the lag screw constructs failed by screw cutout from the head. Both screw designs provide similar fixation strength for stabilization of 4-part intertrochanteric fractures. Both the telescoping lag screw and the helical blade facilitate fracture collapse, but the telescoping lag screw also minimizes lateral projection of the screw from the nail. This advantage may help minimize postoperative lateral soft-tissue impingement.

[1]  A. Al-Munajjed,et al.  Biomechanical characterisation of osteosyntheses for proximal femur fractures: helical blade versus screw. , 2008, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[2]  Eric Strauss,et al.  Helical blade versus sliding hip screw for treatment of unstable intertrochanteric hip fractures: a biomechanical evaluation. , 2006, Injury.

[3]  M. Gardner,et al.  Treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures with the AO trochanteric fixation nail. , 2005, Orthopedics.

[4]  O. Michelsson,et al.  Pertrochanteric femoral fractures treated with a dynamic hip screw or a proximal femoral nail. A randomised study comparing post-operative rehabilitation. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[5]  M. Bottlang,et al.  A Laboratory Model to Evaluate Cutout Resistance of Implants for Pertrochanteric Fracture Fixation , 2004, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[6]  Erik N. Kubiak,et al.  Intramedullary Fixation of Unstable Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures: One or Two Lag Screws , 2004, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[7]  D. Lorich,et al.  Osteoporotic pertrochanteric hip fractures: management and current controversies. , 2004, Instructional course lectures.

[8]  A. Rüter,et al.  Stabilisierung von instabilen trochantären Mehrfragmentfrakturen , 2003, Der Unfallchirurg.

[9]  F. Kummer,et al.  The effect of posterior sag on the fixation stability of intertrochanteric hip fractures. , 2002, The Journal of trauma.

[10]  J. Vroemen,et al.  Biomechanical analysis of the Gamma nail and sliding hip screw. , 1994, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[11]  J. Shaw,et al.  Internal fixation of proximal femur fractures: a biomechanical comparison of the Gamma Locking Nail and the Omega Compression Hip Screw. , 1993, Orthopaedic review.

[12]  F. Kummer,et al.  A biomechanical evaluation of the Gamma nail. , 1992, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[13]  L. S. Matthews,et al.  Stable fixation of intertrochanteric fractures. , 1974, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.