Biomechanical Study of Intramedullary Versus Extramedullary Implants for Four Types of Subtrochanteric Femoral Fracture.

Abstract

ObjectivesTo compare the biomechanical performance of proximal femoral nail anti‐rotation (PFNA), the “upside‐down” less invasive plating system (LISS), and proximal femoral locking plate (PFLP) in fixing different fracture models of subtrochanteric fractures.MethodsThirty composite femurs were divided into three equal groups (PFNA, PFLP, and reverse LISS). The implant‐femur constructs were tested under axial compression load (0–1400 N) from models I to IV, which represented the Seinsheimer type I subtrochanteric fracture, type IIIa subtrochanteric fracture with the posteromedial fragment reduced; type IIIa subtrochanteric fracture with the posteromedial fragment lost; and type IV subtrochanteric fracture, respectively. Axial stiffness was analyzed for each group. Each group was then divided into two subgroups, one of which underwent torsional and axial compression failure testing, while the other subgroup underwent axial compression fatigue testing. The torsional stiffness, failure load, and cycles to failure were analyzed.ResultsPFNA had the highest axial stiffness (F = 761.265, p < 0.0001) and failure load (F = 48.801, p < 0.0001) in model IV. The axial stiffness and failure load of the PFLP were significantly higher than those of the LISS (p < 0.0001, p = 0.001). However, no significant difference in axial stiffness was found between models I to III (model I: F = 2.439, p = 0.106; model II: F = 2.745, p = 0.082; model III: F = 0.852, p = 0.438) or torsional stiffness in model IV (F = 1.784, p = 0.187). In fatigue testing, PFNA did not suffer from construct failure after 90,000 cycles of axial compression. PFLP and LISS were damaged within 14,000 cycles, although LISS withstood more cycles than PFLP (t = 3.328, p = 0.01).ConclusionThe axial stiffness of the three implants was similar in models I to III. The biomechanical properties of PFNA were the best of the three implants in terms of axial stiffness, failure load, and fatigue testing cycles in model IV. The axial stiffness and failure load of the PFLP were better than those of the reverse LISS, but PFLP had fewer cycles in the fatigue tests than the reverse LISS.