ReviewBiomechanical femoral neck fracture experiments—A narrative review
Introduction
The annual worldwide incidence of hip fractures exceeds 1.7 million.1 Femoral neck fractures account for 60% of these fractures and mainly occur in the elderly population.2 With rare exceptions, all femoral neck fractures are treated surgically with either internal fixation or arthroplasty. Today an increasing proportion receives prosthetic replacement.2 Nevertheless, a significant number of patients still have their proximal fragment fixed using various fixation techniques, and improvement of this treatment modality is therefore of clinical interest.
Clinical outcome after femoral neck fractures (FNF) in patients selected for internal fixation (IF) can be improved by better preoperative selection, optimizing surgical procedures of existing devices and by introducing improved implants and techniques.
Novel orthopaedic devices with similar design as already approved implants may not require level III classification by the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) if equivalency to already approved implants has been demonstrated.3 New fracture fixation designs are often based on implants already established and are hence likely to fall into this category. Despite obvious limitations, biomechanical laboratory experiments can thus provide sufficient evidence for releasing a novel design.3
Evaluation of biomechanical femoral neck fracture experiments is troubled by the variety of the experimental setups used. A basic understanding of the most common setups can prove useful when the clinician evaluates the results and later decides whether to introduce a new device to his practice or not. Biomechanical experiments can also throw light on clinically relevant aspects concerning existing implants.
The most obvious shortcoming of biomechanical laboratory studies is their limitation in describing in vivo bone response to mechanical stimuli. Direct investigation of avascular necrosis, fracture healing, stress shielding and late implant loosening due to local bone necrosis4 requires response from live bone. Consequently, short-term failures such as early loosening, implant cut-outs and implant breakage can be demonstrated in laboratory experiments, while evaluation of most long-term outcomes cannot. Computerized models, animal experiments and examination of human samples harvested at surgery or postmortem may supply complementary information.
This paper does not fully describe the complexity of hip biomechanics. The aim is to provide background information necessary to comprehend biomechanical femoral neck fracture models and evaluate their results. By doing so, we hope to make interpretation of laboratory femoral neck fracture-research more accessible to clinicians with no particular background in biomechanics. Important factors like loading conditions, fracture morphology and clinically relevant endpoints are reviewed. The strengths and weaknesses of the different models are discussed.
Section snippets
Basic biomechanics of the hip
Intuitively, weight-bearing during, e.g. walking, compresses the length axis of the femur. The spatial position of the femoral head is located medial and anterior with respect to the anatomical axis of the diaphysis. Therefore weight-bearing also causes an additional bending of the femur. Surrounding soft tissues tend to minimize this bending. Nevertheless, tension on the lateral aspect is still present in vivo.5 In the stance phase of gait the femoral head is loaded with the femur condyles
Stiffness and load-to-failure
A static compression test can reveal the stiffness of a bone-implant construct. The stiffness can be compared to that of intact bone or to a comparable construct. Compression will cause head deflection. This provides data for a load/deflection curve, and stiffness can be calculated from the elastic part of the slope. Further compression will reveal yield load with damage accumulation/micro-fracturing culminating in plastic deformation and eventually failure.37 Stiffness and load-to-failure are
Discussion
A variety of biomechanical setups are used when investigating femoral neck fractures. This opens up the possibility to thoroughly examine this common fracture, but also hampers direct comparison of study results and makes assessment of clinical relevancy difficult. High quality preclinical investigation is essential to secure the patient's welfare, and awareness of the limitations of such studies is essential.
Clinically, failure of internal fixation in femoral neck fractures rarely occurs due
Conclusions
In our opinion, a well-designed biomechanical FNF model for investigation of internal fixation devices is one that closely mirrors the in vivo situation. Human cadaveric femurs should be preferred instead of synthetic replicates, and the age of the donor and quality of bone should resemble the actual patient population. Standardized fractures should mimic fractures as they present themselves in vivo to avoid bias. The constraining of the femur should mirror the physiological situation as good
Conflict of interest statement
All authors state no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
We want to acknowledge Prof. Finsen for highly appreciated help in improving the language. The work has been financed by the Department of Orthopaedics, St. Olavs Hospital.
References (47)
- et al.
Determination of muscle loading at the hip joint for use in pre-clinical testing
J Biomech
(2005) - et al.
Abduction forces in one-legged stance
J Biomech
(1970) - et al.
Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities
J Biomech
(2001) - et al.
A biomechanical investigation of the human hip
J Biomech
(1978) - et al.
Is a helical shaped implant a superior alternative to the Dynamic Hip Screw for unstable femoral neck fractures? A biomechanical investigation
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)
(2009) - et al.
Finite element analysis of four different implants inserted in different positions to stabilize an idealized trochanteric femoral fracture
Injury
(2009) - et al.
Posterior multifragmentation of the femoral neck: does it portend a poor outcome in internally fixed intracapsular hip fractures?
Injury
(2009) - et al.
Complications after intracapsular hip fractures in young adults. A meta-analysis of 18 published studies involving 564 fractures
Injury
(2005) - et al.
Biomechanical analysis of the percutaneous compression plate and sliding hip screw in intracapsular hip fractures: experimental assessment using synthetic and cadaver bones
Injury
(2006) - et al.
Biomechanical comparison of two side plate fixation techniques in an unstable intertrochanteric osteotomy model: sliding hip screw and percutaneous compression plate
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)
(2007)
Optimum configuration of cannulated hip screws for the fixation of intracapsular hip fractures: a biomechanical study
Injury
In vitro replication of spontaneous fractures of the proximal human femur
J Biomech
Basic biomechanical measurements of bone: a tutorial
Bone
Patient specific quantitative analysis of fracture fixation in the proximal femur implementing principal strain ratios. Method and experimental validation
J Biomech
Mechanical validation of whole bone composite femur models
J Biomech
Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions
Bull World Health Organ
The Norwegian hip fracture register 2010
The evidence-based approach in bringing new orthopaedic devices to market
J Bone Joint Surg Am
Early temporary porosis of bone induced by internal fixation implants. A reaction to necrosis, not to stress protection?
Clin Orthop Relat Res
In vivo measurements show tensile axial strain in the proximal lateral aspect of the human femur
J Orthop Res
Telemetric force measurements across the hip after total arthroplasty
J Bone Joint Surg Am
The effect of cane use on hip contact force
Clin Orthop Relat Res
Postoperative weight-bearing after a fracture of the femoral neck or an intertrochanteric fracture
J Bone Joint Surg Am
Cited by (41)
Cerclage cable augmentation does not increase stability of the fixation of intertrochanteric fractures. A biomechanical study
2021, Orthopaedics and Traumatology: Surgery and ResearchIn vitro estimation of fracture load and strain in sheep femur bone: Experimental approach
2021, Materials Today: ProceedingsCitation Excerpt :Limited studies are performed on experimental investigations of biomechanical properties at different displacement rate in compressive stance configuration of femur bone. Besides, an investigation has been performed using finite element analysis in available literature [20,38,39]. From the literature, it has been observed that very limited studies have been done on mechanical properties of femur bone.
Increased stability by a novel femoral neck interlocking plate compared to conventional fixation methods. A biomechanical study in synthetic bone
2020, Clinical BiomechanicsCitation Excerpt :Enhanced torsional stability by medial anchorage and lateral enforcement compared to its precursor pins has been reported (Brattgjerd et al., 2018), but no comparison to other osteosynthesis is available. In the context of more strict requirements to technical documentation of novel implants (EU regulations, 2017), systematic evaluation of new implants and their components in relevant tests and bone models is recommended (Basso et al., 2012; Hausmann, 2006; Hunt et al., 2012; Schemitsch et al., 2010). The aim of the present study was to investigate biomechanically whether the new implant improves medial and lateral stabilisation without the expense of adverse effects when compared to other relevant femoral neck fixations in undisplaced or anatomically reduced fractures.
The mechanical behavior of bone
2020, Marcus and Feldman’s OsteoporosisThe early failure of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw in femurs with a wide medullary canal. A biomechanical study of intertrochanteric fractures
2020, Clinical BiomechanicsCitation Excerpt :On the other hand, the intramedullary devices perform better in grossly unstable fractures (Kokoroghiannis et al., 2012; Palm et al., 2016; Schipper et al., 2004). Biomechanical studies, even with high quality clinical data available, are invaluable in assessing newly designed implants (Basso et al., 2014, 2012; Marmor et al., 2015; Queally et al., 2014), or in explaining the reasons for fixation failure observed in vivo and providing modifications in operative techniques that may lower the complication rate (Kaiser et al., 1997; Kukla et al., 2001; Kuzyk et al., 2012; Lenich et al., 2011). Clinical and biomechanical studies compare implants with regard to revision rate, screw cut – out or fracture of the bone.