Fixation of femoral allograft/prosthesis composites after 25%, 50% and 75% resection

Sean Kohles, Mark D. Markel, M. G. Rock, E. Y S Chao, R. Vanderby

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The relative linear and angular displacements of proximal femoral reconstructions were compared within six different replacement techniques during ex vivo axial compression, mediolateral bending, and axial torsion in dogs. Each femur was osteotomized at 25%, 50%, or 75% of its length and the proximal portion subsequently replaced using one of six techniques. The reconstruction techniques included various combinations of proximal and distal fixation methods (graft fixation/distal fixation): (1) an allograft/prosthesis composite (APC) press-fit proximally and cemented distally (press-fit/cement); (2) APC cemented proximally and distally (cement/cement); (3) APC cemented proximally and the host bone/graft interface double plated (cement/plates); (4) APC cemented proximally and secured distally with bicortical screws (cement/screws); (5) APC secured proximally and distally with bicortical screws (screws/screws); (6) Segmental proximal femoral replacement cemented into the distal femur without an allograft (no graft/cement). For axial compression and mediolateral bending, the combined resection lengths revealed no differences in linear and angular displacements, respectively, between reconstruction methods. During axial torsion, the cement/cement technique allowed larger angular displacements than all but the press-fit/cement technique which had larger displacements than the cement/screws, screws/screws, and no graft/cement groups (p <0.0001). Overall, the measured implant stability was solid and consistent as evidenced by small amounts of relative displacement and small error values.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)115-121
Number of pages7
JournalMedical Engineering and Physics
Volume18
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1996
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Thigh
Prostheses and Implants
Allografts
Cements
Composite materials
Grafts
Transplants
Femur
Axial compression
Torsional stress
Bone cement
Dogs
Bone and Bones
Bone

Keywords

  • Canine
  • Limb salvage
  • Mechanical evaluation
  • Micromotion
  • Relative displacement
  • Total hip replacement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Fixation of femoral allograft/prosthesis composites after 25%, 50% and 75% resection. / Kohles, Sean; Markel, Mark D.; Rock, M. G.; Chao, E. Y S; Vanderby, R.

In: Medical Engineering and Physics, Vol. 18, No. 2, 03.1996, p. 115-121.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kohles, Sean ; Markel, Mark D. ; Rock, M. G. ; Chao, E. Y S ; Vanderby, R. / Fixation of femoral allograft/prosthesis composites after 25%, 50% and 75% resection. In: Medical Engineering and Physics. 1996 ; Vol. 18, No. 2. pp. 115-121.
@article{f7324802c86442d9ab479d40c8ddce44,
title = "Fixation of femoral allograft/prosthesis composites after 25{\%}, 50{\%} and 75{\%} resection",
abstract = "The relative linear and angular displacements of proximal femoral reconstructions were compared within six different replacement techniques during ex vivo axial compression, mediolateral bending, and axial torsion in dogs. Each femur was osteotomized at 25{\%}, 50{\%}, or 75{\%} of its length and the proximal portion subsequently replaced using one of six techniques. The reconstruction techniques included various combinations of proximal and distal fixation methods (graft fixation/distal fixation): (1) an allograft/prosthesis composite (APC) press-fit proximally and cemented distally (press-fit/cement); (2) APC cemented proximally and distally (cement/cement); (3) APC cemented proximally and the host bone/graft interface double plated (cement/plates); (4) APC cemented proximally and secured distally with bicortical screws (cement/screws); (5) APC secured proximally and distally with bicortical screws (screws/screws); (6) Segmental proximal femoral replacement cemented into the distal femur without an allograft (no graft/cement). For axial compression and mediolateral bending, the combined resection lengths revealed no differences in linear and angular displacements, respectively, between reconstruction methods. During axial torsion, the cement/cement technique allowed larger angular displacements than all but the press-fit/cement technique which had larger displacements than the cement/screws, screws/screws, and no graft/cement groups (p <0.0001). Overall, the measured implant stability was solid and consistent as evidenced by small amounts of relative displacement and small error values.",
keywords = "Canine, Limb salvage, Mechanical evaluation, Micromotion, Relative displacement, Total hip replacement",
author = "Sean Kohles and Markel, {Mark D.} and Rock, {M. G.} and Chao, {E. Y S} and R. Vanderby",
year = "1996",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/1350-4533(95)00036-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "115--121",
journal = "Medical Engineering and Physics",
issn = "1350-4533",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fixation of femoral allograft/prosthesis composites after 25%, 50% and 75% resection

AU - Kohles, Sean

AU - Markel, Mark D.

AU - Rock, M. G.

AU - Chao, E. Y S

AU - Vanderby, R.

PY - 1996/3

Y1 - 1996/3

N2 - The relative linear and angular displacements of proximal femoral reconstructions were compared within six different replacement techniques during ex vivo axial compression, mediolateral bending, and axial torsion in dogs. Each femur was osteotomized at 25%, 50%, or 75% of its length and the proximal portion subsequently replaced using one of six techniques. The reconstruction techniques included various combinations of proximal and distal fixation methods (graft fixation/distal fixation): (1) an allograft/prosthesis composite (APC) press-fit proximally and cemented distally (press-fit/cement); (2) APC cemented proximally and distally (cement/cement); (3) APC cemented proximally and the host bone/graft interface double plated (cement/plates); (4) APC cemented proximally and secured distally with bicortical screws (cement/screws); (5) APC secured proximally and distally with bicortical screws (screws/screws); (6) Segmental proximal femoral replacement cemented into the distal femur without an allograft (no graft/cement). For axial compression and mediolateral bending, the combined resection lengths revealed no differences in linear and angular displacements, respectively, between reconstruction methods. During axial torsion, the cement/cement technique allowed larger angular displacements than all but the press-fit/cement technique which had larger displacements than the cement/screws, screws/screws, and no graft/cement groups (p <0.0001). Overall, the measured implant stability was solid and consistent as evidenced by small amounts of relative displacement and small error values.

AB - The relative linear and angular displacements of proximal femoral reconstructions were compared within six different replacement techniques during ex vivo axial compression, mediolateral bending, and axial torsion in dogs. Each femur was osteotomized at 25%, 50%, or 75% of its length and the proximal portion subsequently replaced using one of six techniques. The reconstruction techniques included various combinations of proximal and distal fixation methods (graft fixation/distal fixation): (1) an allograft/prosthesis composite (APC) press-fit proximally and cemented distally (press-fit/cement); (2) APC cemented proximally and distally (cement/cement); (3) APC cemented proximally and the host bone/graft interface double plated (cement/plates); (4) APC cemented proximally and secured distally with bicortical screws (cement/screws); (5) APC secured proximally and distally with bicortical screws (screws/screws); (6) Segmental proximal femoral replacement cemented into the distal femur without an allograft (no graft/cement). For axial compression and mediolateral bending, the combined resection lengths revealed no differences in linear and angular displacements, respectively, between reconstruction methods. During axial torsion, the cement/cement technique allowed larger angular displacements than all but the press-fit/cement technique which had larger displacements than the cement/screws, screws/screws, and no graft/cement groups (p <0.0001). Overall, the measured implant stability was solid and consistent as evidenced by small amounts of relative displacement and small error values.

KW - Canine

KW - Limb salvage

KW - Mechanical evaluation

KW - Micromotion

KW - Relative displacement

KW - Total hip replacement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030111243&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030111243&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/1350-4533(95)00036-4

DO - 10.1016/1350-4533(95)00036-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 8673317

AN - SCOPUS:0030111243

VL - 18

SP - 115

EP - 121

JO - Medical Engineering and Physics

JF - Medical Engineering and Physics

SN - 1350-4533

IS - 2

ER -