J Appl Biomed 11:143-151, 2013 | DOI: 10.2478/v10136-012-0017-8

Computational modeling in the prediction of Dynamic Hip Screw failure in proximal femoral fractures

Maroš Hrubina1,2,*, Zdeněk Horák3, Radek Bartoška4, Leoš Navrátil2, Jozef Rosina2
1 Department of Orthopaedics, Hospital Pelhřimov, Czech Republic
2 Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Medicine and Humanities, Kladno, Czech Republic
3 Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Laboratory of Biomechanics, Prague, Czech Republic
4 Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Third Medical Faculty of Charles University and University Hospital Královské Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic

The aim of the study was to determine the relationship between implant-associated complications and Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS) placement in the femoral neck, based on a Finite Element (FE) Analysis. Very diverse implant failures and subsequent complications can be encountered after introduction of the DHS. We evaluated 308 dynamic hip screw osteosyntheses for pertrochanteric fractures in 297 patients. The ABAQUS 6.9 program was used for development of the FE model, and the analyses were performed in 5 modelled situations corresponding to five different screw locations. Complications occurred in 10% of patients and re-operation was necessary in 3.9%. The highest risk of implant failure was associated with the screw situation in the upper third of the femoral neck. Placing a dynamic hip screw in the middle third of the neck significantly reduced stresses in the plate and screw. The screw position in the upper third of the neck significantly increased these stresses. The finite element analysis confirmed our clinical experience that the optimum position of the dynamic hip screw is in the middle third of the femoral neck.

Keywords: dynamic hip screw; proximal femoral fracture; finite element method

Received: February 10, 2012; Revised: April 6, 2012; Published: July 31, 2013  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Hrubina M, Horák Z, Bartoška R, Navrátil L, Rosina J. Computational modeling in the prediction of Dynamic Hip Screw failure in proximal femoral fractures. J Appl Biomed. 2013;11(3):143-151. doi: 10.2478/v10136-012-0017-8.
Download citation

References

  1. Baca V, Kachlik D, Horak Z, Stingl, J. The course of osteons in the compact bone of the human proximal femur with clinical and biomechanical significance. Surg Rad Anat. 29: 201-207, 2007. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  2. Baca V, Horak Z, Mikulenka P, Dzupa V. Comparison of an inhomogeneous orthotropic and isotropic material models used for FE analyses. Med Eng Phys. 30: 924-930, 2008. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Barton TM, Gleeson R, Topliss C, Greenwood R, Harries WJ, Chesser TSJ. A comparison of the long gama nail with the sliding hip screw for the treatment of AO/OTA 31-A2 fractures of the proximal part of the femur. J Bone Jt. Surg. 92A: 792-798, 2010. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Bartonicek J, Dousa P, Skala-Rosenbaum J, Kostal R. Trochanteric fractures - current concepts review. Uraz Chir (in Czech). 10: 13-24, 2002.
  5. Baumgaertner MR, Curtin SL, Lindskog DM, Keggi JM. The value of the tip-apex distance in predicting failure of fixation of peritrochanteric fractures of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg. 77A: 1058-1064, 1995. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M, Graichen F, Rohlmann A, Strauss J, Duda GN. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech. 34: 859-871, 2001. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Bergmann G, Graichen F, Rohlmann A. Hip joint contact forces during stumbling. Langebecks Arch Surg. 389: 53-59, 2004. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Birnbaum K, Parndorf T. Finite element model of the proximal femur under consideration of the hip centralizing forces of the iliotibial tract. Clin Biomech. 26: 58-64, 2011. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  9. Bonnaire F, Lein T, Bula P. Trochanteric femoral fractures: Anatomy, biomechanics and choice of implant. Unfallchirurg. 114: 491-500, 2011. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. Couteau B, Hobatho MC, Darmana R, Bringola JC, Arlaud JY. Finite element modeling of the vibrational behaviour of the human femur using CT-based individualized geometrical and material properties. J Biomech. 31: 383-386, 1998. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Füchtmeier B, Gebhard F, Lenich A. Complications after pertrochanteric fractures. Unfallchirurg. 114: 479-484, 2011. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Güven M, Yavuz U, Kadioglu B. Importance of screw position in intertrochanteric femoral fractures treated by dynamic hip screw. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 96: 21-27, 2010. Go to original source...
  13. Helgason B, Perilli E, Schileo E, Taddei F, Brynjólfsson S, Viceconti M. Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: A literature review. Clin Biomech. 23: 135-146, 2008. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. Hrubina M, Skotak M, Behounek J. Complications of dynamic hip screw treatment for proximal femoral fractures. Acta Chir Orthop Traum Czech 77: 395-401, 2010. Go to original source...
  15. Hsueh KK, Fang CK, Chen CM, Su YP, Wu HF, Chiu FY. Risk factors in cutout of sliding hip screw in intertrochanteric fractures: an evaluation of 937 patients. Int Orthop. 34: 1273-1276, 2010. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Ito M, Nakata T, Nishida A, Uetani M. Age-related changes in bone density, geometry and biomechanical properties of the proximal femur: CT-based 3D hip structure analysis in normal postmenopausal women. Bone. 48: 627-630, 2011. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Keyak J, Falkinstein Y. Comparison of in situ and in vitro CT scan-based finite element model predictions of proximal femoral fracture load. Medic Eng Physic. 25: 781-787, 2003. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Kopp L, Edelman K, Obruba P, Prochazka B, Blstaková K, Dzupa V. Mortality risc factors in the elderly with proximal femoral fracture treated surgically. Acta Chir Orthop Traum Czech. 76: 41-46, 2009. Go to original source...
  19. Krischak G, Dürselen L, Röderer G. Treatment of peritrochanteric fractures. Biomechanical considerations. Unfallchirurg. 114: 485-490, 2011. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  20. Malkus T, Vaculik J, Dungl P, Majernicek M. Problems in intertrochanteric fractures. Ortopedie (in Czech). 3: 274-282, 2009.
  21. Rohlmann A, Mössner U, Bergmann G, Kölbel R. Finite-element analysis and experimental investigation of stresses in a femur. J Biomed Eng. 4: 241-246, 1982. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  22. Vaculik J, Malkus T, Majernicek M, Podskubka A, Dungl P. Incidence of proximal femoral fractures. Ortopedie (in Czech). 1: 62-68, 2007.
  23. Viceconti M, Olsen S, Nolte LP, Burton K. Extracting clinically relevant data from finite element situations. Clin Biomech. 20: 451-454, 2005. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  24. Wirtz DC, Pandorf T, Redermacher K. Conception and realization of a physiological justified anisotropic finite-element model of the proximal femur. Z Orthop. 136: A121-A122, 1998.