• Mehmet Gülşen, Vasfi Karatosun, and Bahadır Uyulgan.
• Department of Plastic Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Medical Faculty, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey.
• Acta Orthop Traumato. 2011 Jan 1; 45 (4): 266-9.

ObjectiveThe aim of our study was to compare the biomechanical properties of different fixation methods used in periprosthetic femur fractures.MethodsWe created sawbone models with Mallory Type 2 periprosthetic femur fractures. The periprosthetic fractures were fixed with cables, cables and strut graft, or cables and plates. The biomechanical properties of these three different fixation methods were compared with the intact femur, the intact femur with prosthesis and the femur with periprosthetic fracture without fixation.ResultsThe periprosthetic fracture without fixation had a significantly lower yield point value than the periprosthetic fractures with fixation (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between the three different fixation methods of the periprosthetic fractures. The intact femur with a prosthesis showed statistically higher values than all three fixation methods of perioprosthetic fractures.ConclusionMallory Type 2 periprosthetic fractures should be fixed. There is no difference among the fixation methods used in the study and none of them provide a stability equivalent to that of an intact femur with prosthesis.

11 keywords...

hide…