The major concern after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the incidence of periprosthetic fracture in the weaker bone, which can lead to subsequent revision surgery. Achieving the suitable fixation without affecting the stability of the well-fixed prosthesis remains controversial. Most of the studies examined the behavior of the Periprosthetic Fracture (PF) fixation (Vancouver “B1” type) through computational and experimentation on healthy bone condition with metal plates. The aim of the present study is to analyze the influences of the metal and composite bone plate PF fixation on the axial and shear movement at the fracture site. The PF fixation constructs were modeled with medical graded stainless-steel plate (construct A), titanium plate (construct B) and carbon/epoxy composite bone plate (construct C) with 12 holes and a 4 mm fracture gap. Analysis was carried out for all the stages (stage 1—Normal bone, stage 2—THA, stage 3—Immediate Post-Operative (IPO), stage 4—Post-Operative (PO) and, stage 5—Healed Bone (HB)) under various loadings for intact and osteoporosis conditions. The results showed higher stress in cortical bone for stage 3, whereas in all the other stages lower stresses were experienced in the cortical and cancelous bone under peak load in construct C for osteoporosis model compared with other constructs. The present study suggested the construct C may be suitable for osteoporosis bone conditions.
PabingerCLothallerHPortnerN, et al. Projections of hip arthroplasty in OECD countries up to 2050. Hip Int2018; 28(5): 498–506.
2.
DemosHABrionesMSWhitePH, et al. A biomechanical comparison of periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation in normal and osteoporotic cadaveric bone. J Arthroplasty2012; 27(5): 783–788.
3.
BurgeRDawson-HughesBSolomonDH, et al. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025. J Bone Miner Res2007; 22(3): 465–475.
4.
ArkuszKKlekielTNiezgodaN, et al. The influence of osteoporotic bone structures of the pelvic-hip complex on stress distribution under impact load. Acta Bioeng Biomech2018; 20(1): 29–38.
5.
ChatterjeeSRoySMajumderS, et al. Biomechanical analysis to probe role of bone condition and subject weight in stiffness customization of femoral stem for improved periprosthetic biomechanical response. J Biomech Eng2020; 142(10): 1–2.
6.
ChatterjeeSKobylinskiSBasuB.Finite element analysis to probe the influence of acetabular shell design, liner material, and subject parameters on biomechanical response in periprosthetic bone. J Biomech Eng2018; 140(10): 101014.
7.
NixonMTaylorGSheldonP, et al. Does bone quality predict loosening of cemented total hip replacements?J Bone Joint Surg2007; 89(10): 1303–1308.
8.
LenzMPerrenSMGueorguievB, et al. Mechanical behavior of fixation components for periprosthetic fracture surgery. Clin Biomech2013; 28(9–10): 988–993.
9.
ZderoRWalkerRWaddellJP, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation. J Bone Joint Surgery Am2008; 90(5): 1068–1077.
10.
EbrahimiHRabinovichMVuletaV, et al. Biomechanical properties of an intact, injured, repaired, and healed femur: an experimental and computational study. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2012; 16(1): 121–135.
11.
KonstantinidisLHauschildOBeckmannNA, et al. Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures with two different minimal invasive angle-stable plates: biomechanical comparison studies on cadaveric bones. Injury2010; 41(12): 1256–1261.
12.
DubovAKimSYRShahS, et al. The biomechanics of plate repair of periprosthetic femur fractures near the tip of a total hip implant: the effect of cable-screw position. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering Medicine2011; 225(9): 857–865.
13.
ShahSKimSYDubovA, et al. The biomechanics of plate fixation of periprosthetic femoral fractures near the tip of a total hip implant: cables, screws, or both?Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering Medicine2011; 225(9): 845–856.
14.
LehmannWRupprechtMHellmersN, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of peri- and interprosthetic fractures of the femur. J Trauma2010; 68(6): 1459–1463.
15.
LeonidouAMoazenMLepetsosP, et al. The biomechanical effect of bone quality and fracture topography on locking plate fixation in periprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury2015; 46(2): 213–217.
16.
WangGWangDMaoJ, et al. Three dimensional finite-element analysis of treating Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures with three kinds of internal fixation. Int J Clin Exp Med2016; 9(6): 10915–10922.
17.
KimHJKimSHChangSH.Bio-mechanical analysis of a fractured tibia with composite bone plates according to the diaphyseal oblique fracture angle. Compos B Eng2011; 42(4): 666–674.
18.
KimSHChangSHJungHJ.The finite element analysis of a fractured tibia applied by composite bone plates considering contact conditions and time-varying properties of curing tissues. Compos Struct2010; 92(9): 2109–2118.
19.
FoudaNMostafaRSakerA.Numerical study of stress shielding reduction at fractured bone using metallic and composite bone-plate models. Ain Shams Eng J2019; 10(3): 481–488.
20.
SonDSMehboobHChangSH.Simulation of the bone healing process of fractured long bones applied with a composite bone plate with consideration of the blood vessel growth. Compos B Eng2014; 58: 443–450.
21.
DhasonRRoySDattaS.A biomechanical study on the laminate stacking sequence in composite bone plates for vancouver femur B1 fracture fixation. Comput Methods Programs Biomed2020; 196: 105680.
22.
O’ConnorJAlves BorgesLPereira DudaFda CruzAG. Growth and reabsorption in biological tissues. In: XXXVI Ibero-Latin American Congress on Computational Methods in Engineering (CILAMCE 2015).
23.
PlateC. (n.d.). Contourable dual compression.
24.
DanielK. Applications of plates and screws, chapter 2. AO Manual, 2005.
25.
GuideT. (n.d.). Exeter TM hip system.
26.
BagheriZSTavakkoli AvvalPBougheraraH, et al. Biomechanical analysis of a new carbon fiber/flax/epoxy bone fracture plate shows less stress shielding compared to a standard clinical metal plate. J Biomech Eng2014; 136(9): 091002.
27.
SamiezadehSTavakkoli AvvalPFawazZ, et al. On optimization of a composite bone plate using the selective stress shielding approach. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2015; 42: 138–153.
28.
MoazenMMakJHEtchelsLW, et al. Periprosthetic femoral fracture–a biomechanical comparison between vancouver type B1 and B2 fixation methods. J Arthroplasty2014; 29(3): 495–500.
29.
ChenDWLinCLHuCC, et al. Finite element analysis of different repair methods of Vancouver B1 periprosthetic fractures after total hip arthroplasty. Injury2012; 43(7): 1061–1065.
30.
ParkSHAugatP.Shear movement at the fracture site delays healing in a diaphyseal fracture model (multiple letters). J Orthop Res2004; 22(5): 1156–1157.
31.
PetersCLBachusKNDavittJS.Fixation of periprosthetic femur fractures: a biomechanical analysis comparing cortical strut allograft plates and conventional metal plates. Orthopedics2003; 26(7): 695–699.
32.
HaddadFSDehaanMNBradyO, et al. A biomechanical evaluation of cortical onlay allograft struts in the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. Hip Int2003; 13(3): 148–158.
33.
SchmotzerHTchejeyanGHDallDM.Surgical management of intra- and postoperative fractures of the femur about the tip of the stem in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty1996; 11(6): 709–717.
34.
WooSLLothringerKSAkesonWH, et al. Less rigid internal fixation plates: historical perspectives and new concepts. J Orthop Res1984; 1(4): 431–449.
35.
SamiezadehSTavakkoli AvvalPFawazZ, et al. Biomechanical assessment of composite versus metallic intramedullary nailing system in femoral shaft fractures: a finite element study. Clin Biomech2014; 29(7): 803–810.
36.
MowVCHuiskesR.Basic orthopaedic biomechanics and mechano-biology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005.
