The efficacy of rotational control designs in promoting torsional stability of hip fracture fixation

Jan Gosiewski, Timothy Holsgrove, Harinderjit Gill

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Abstract
Objectives: Proximal fractures of the femur are a common problem, and a number of orthopaedic devices are available for the treatment of such fractures. The objective of this study was to assess the rotational stability, a common failure predictor, of three different rotational control design philosophies, a screw, helical blade and a deployable crucifix.
Methods: Devices were compared in terms of the mechanical work (W) required to rotate the implant by 6° in a bone substitute material. The substitute material used was Sawbones polyurethane foam of three different densities (0.08 g/cm3, 0.16 g/cm3 and 0.24 g/cm3). Each torsion test comprised a steady ramp of 1°/minute up to an angular displacement of 10°.
Results: The deployable crucifix design (the X-Bolt), was more torsionally stable, compared to both the screw (DHS, p = 0.008) and helical blade (DHS Blade, p= 0.008) designs in osteoporotic bone substitute material (0.16 g/cm3 polyurethane foam). In 0.08 g/cm3 density substrate, the crucifix design (the X-Bolt) had a higher resistance to torsion than the screw (DHS, p = 0.008). There were no significant differences (p = 0.101) between the implants in 0.24 g/cm3 density bone substitute.
Conclusions: Our findings indicate that the clinical standard proximal fracture fixator design, the screw (DHS), was the least effective at resisting torsional load, and a novel crucifix design (X-Bolt), was the most effective design in resisting torsional load in osteoporotic bone substitute material. At other densities the torsional stability was also higher for the bolt, although not always statistically significant.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)270-276
JournalBone and Joint Research
Volume6
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 4 May 2017

Fingerprint

Fracture fixation
Bone Substitutes
Fracture Fixation
Hip Fractures
Bolts
Bone
Equipment and Supplies
Architectural Accessibility
Torsional stress
Polyurethanes
Foams
Femur
Orthopedics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biomedical Engineering

Cite this

The efficacy of rotational control designs in promoting torsional stability of hip fracture fixation. / Gosiewski, Jan; Holsgrove, Timothy; Gill, Harinderjit.

In: Bone and Joint Research, Vol. 6, No. 5, 04.05.2017, p. 270-276.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1fa871a5c0e54cc9887889bfe5d86792,
title = "The efficacy of rotational control designs in promoting torsional stability of hip fracture fixation",
abstract = "Abstract Objectives: Proximal fractures of the femur are a common problem, and a number of orthopaedic devices are available for the treatment of such fractures. The objective of this study was to assess the rotational stability, a common failure predictor, of three different rotational control design philosophies, a screw, helical blade and a deployable crucifix. Methods: Devices were compared in terms of the mechanical work (W) required to rotate the implant by 6° in a bone substitute material. The substitute material used was Sawbones polyurethane foam of three different densities (0.08 g/cm3, 0.16 g/cm3 and 0.24 g/cm3). Each torsion test comprised a steady ramp of 1°/minute up to an angular displacement of 10°. Results: The deployable crucifix design (the X-Bolt), was more torsionally stable, compared to both the screw (DHS, p = 0.008) and helical blade (DHS Blade, p= 0.008) designs in osteoporotic bone substitute material (0.16 g/cm3 polyurethane foam). In 0.08 g/cm3 density substrate, the crucifix design (the X-Bolt) had a higher resistance to torsion than the screw (DHS, p = 0.008). There were no significant differences (p = 0.101) between the implants in 0.24 g/cm3 density bone substitute. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that the clinical standard proximal fracture fixator design, the screw (DHS), was the least effective at resisting torsional load, and a novel crucifix design (X-Bolt), was the most effective design in resisting torsional load in osteoporotic bone substitute material. At other densities the torsional stability was also higher for the bolt, although not always statistically significant.",
author = "Jan Gosiewski and Timothy Holsgrove and Harinderjit Gill",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1302/2046-3758.65.BJR-2017-0287.R1",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "270--276",
journal = "Bone and Joint Research",
issn = "2046-3758",
publisher = "British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The efficacy of rotational control designs in promoting torsional stability of hip fracture fixation

AU - Gosiewski, Jan

AU - Holsgrove, Timothy

AU - Gill, Harinderjit

PY - 2017/5/4

Y1 - 2017/5/4

N2 - Abstract Objectives: Proximal fractures of the femur are a common problem, and a number of orthopaedic devices are available for the treatment of such fractures. The objective of this study was to assess the rotational stability, a common failure predictor, of three different rotational control design philosophies, a screw, helical blade and a deployable crucifix. Methods: Devices were compared in terms of the mechanical work (W) required to rotate the implant by 6° in a bone substitute material. The substitute material used was Sawbones polyurethane foam of three different densities (0.08 g/cm3, 0.16 g/cm3 and 0.24 g/cm3). Each torsion test comprised a steady ramp of 1°/minute up to an angular displacement of 10°. Results: The deployable crucifix design (the X-Bolt), was more torsionally stable, compared to both the screw (DHS, p = 0.008) and helical blade (DHS Blade, p= 0.008) designs in osteoporotic bone substitute material (0.16 g/cm3 polyurethane foam). In 0.08 g/cm3 density substrate, the crucifix design (the X-Bolt) had a higher resistance to torsion than the screw (DHS, p = 0.008). There were no significant differences (p = 0.101) between the implants in 0.24 g/cm3 density bone substitute. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that the clinical standard proximal fracture fixator design, the screw (DHS), was the least effective at resisting torsional load, and a novel crucifix design (X-Bolt), was the most effective design in resisting torsional load in osteoporotic bone substitute material. At other densities the torsional stability was also higher for the bolt, although not always statistically significant.

AB - Abstract Objectives: Proximal fractures of the femur are a common problem, and a number of orthopaedic devices are available for the treatment of such fractures. The objective of this study was to assess the rotational stability, a common failure predictor, of three different rotational control design philosophies, a screw, helical blade and a deployable crucifix. Methods: Devices were compared in terms of the mechanical work (W) required to rotate the implant by 6° in a bone substitute material. The substitute material used was Sawbones polyurethane foam of three different densities (0.08 g/cm3, 0.16 g/cm3 and 0.24 g/cm3). Each torsion test comprised a steady ramp of 1°/minute up to an angular displacement of 10°. Results: The deployable crucifix design (the X-Bolt), was more torsionally stable, compared to both the screw (DHS, p = 0.008) and helical blade (DHS Blade, p= 0.008) designs in osteoporotic bone substitute material (0.16 g/cm3 polyurethane foam). In 0.08 g/cm3 density substrate, the crucifix design (the X-Bolt) had a higher resistance to torsion than the screw (DHS, p = 0.008). There were no significant differences (p = 0.101) between the implants in 0.24 g/cm3 density bone substitute. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that the clinical standard proximal fracture fixator design, the screw (DHS), was the least effective at resisting torsional load, and a novel crucifix design (X-Bolt), was the most effective design in resisting torsional load in osteoporotic bone substitute material. At other densities the torsional stability was also higher for the bolt, although not always statistically significant.

UR - https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.65.BJR-2017-0287.R1

UR - https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.65.BJR-2017-0287.R1

U2 - 10.1302/2046-3758.65.BJR-2017-0287.R1

DO - 10.1302/2046-3758.65.BJR-2017-0287.R1

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 270

EP - 276

JO - Bone and Joint Research

JF - Bone and Joint Research

SN - 2046-3758

IS - 5

ER -