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 language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 115-121 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Medical Engineering and Physics |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Mar 1996 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Article
}
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 -