Traditional high-stiffness metal plates for Vancouver B1 femur shaft fractures below the tip of a hip implant can cause stress shielding, bone resorption, and implant loosening. This is the first study to compare the biomechanics of a traditional metal plate versus a low-stiffness carbon fibre/epoxy composite plate for this injury. A total hip replacement was implanted in two previously validated intact artificial femurs. Femurs were fitted with either a metal or composite plate and had a 5 mm fracture gap created to simulate a Vancouver B1 shaft fracture. Femurs were cyclically loaded using 5 Hz at 7° of adduction with an average axial load of 800 N (range = 400–1200 N). Overall mechanical stiffnesses and femur and plate thermographic stresses were obtained. Femur/metal plate stiffness (698 N/mm) was only 12% higher than femur/composite plate stiffness (625 N/mm). The femur with the composite plate had 22.7% higher combined average stress compared to the femur with the metal plate, having specific differences of 29.5% (anterior view), 33.9% (posterior view), 1.0% (medial view), and 26.4% (lateral view). The composite plate itself had an average 21.1% reduction in stress compared to the metal plate. The composite plate reduced stress shielding, yet provided adequate stiffness.
US Department of Transportation. Transportation statistics annual report, http://www.bts.gov (2010, accessed 10 December 2012)
3.
DennisMGSimonJAKummerFJ. Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures occurring at the tip of the stem: a biomechanical study of 5 techniques. J Arthroplasty2000; 15: 523–528.
4.
ScottRTurnerRLeitzesS. Femoral fractures in conjunction with total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am1975; 57: 494–501.
5.
OgdenWSRendallJF. Fractures beneath hip prostheses: a special indication for Parham bands and plating. Orthop Trans1978; 2: 70–73.
6.
ZderoRWalkerRWaddellJP. Biomechanical evaluation of periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am2008; 90: 1068–1077.
7.
RamakrishnaSMayerJHuangZM. An introduction to biocomposites (series on biomaterials and bioengineering), vol. 1. London: Imperial College Press, 2004.
8.
Hayes WC and Snyder BD. Toward a quantitative formulation of Wolff’s law in trabecular bone. In: Cowin SC (ed.)Mechanical properties of bone. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineering, 1981, pp.45–68.
9.
LengsfeldMBurchardRGuntherD. Femoral strain changes after total hip arthroplasty patient-specific finite element analyses 12 years after operation. Med Eng Phys2005; 27: 649–654.
10.
LinFHChenTMLinCP. The merit of sintered PDLLA/TCP composites in management of bone fracture internal fixation. Artif Organs1999; 23: 186–194.
11.
MiettinenHMäkeläARokkanenP. Fixation of diaphyseal femoral osteotomy with self-reinforced biodegradable intramedullary implants: an experimental study on growing dogs. Clin Mater1992; 9: 31–36.
12.
Saikku-BäckströmA. Biodegradable self-reinforced polylactic acid stereocopolymer implants in the fixation of diaphyseal osteotomies and fractures. PhD Thesis, University of Helsinki, Finland, 2005.
13.
AliMSFrenchTAHastingsGW. Carbon fibre composite bone plates: development, evaluation, and early clinical experience. J Bone Joint Surg Br1990; 72: 586–591.
14.
TaytonKBradleyJ. How stiff should semi-rigid fixation of the human tibia be? A clue to the answer. J Bone Joint Surg Br1983; 65: 312–315.
15.
TaytonKJohnson-NurseCMcKibbinB. The use of semi-rigid carbon-fibre-reinforced plastic plates for fixation of human fractures. Results of preliminary trials. J Bone Joint Surg Br1982; 64: 105–111.
16.
CochranGVBPalmieriVRZickelRE. Aramid-epoxy composite internal fixation plates: a pilot study. Clin Biomech1994; 9: 315–322.
17.
FujiharaKHuangZ-MRamakrishnaS. Performance study of braided carbon/PEEK composite compression bone plates. Biomaterials2003; 24: 2661–2667.
18.
FujiharaKHuangZ-MRamakrishnaS. Feasibility of knitted carbon/PEEK composites for orthopedic bone plates. Biomaterials2004; 25: 3877–3885.
19.
HuangZ-MFujiharaK. Stiffness and strength design of composite bone plates. Compos Sci Technol2005; 65: 73–85.
20.
ToninoAJDavidsonCLKlopperPJ. Protection from stress in bone and its effects. Experiments with stainless steel and plastic plates in dogs. J Bone Joint Surg Br1976; 58: 107–113.
21.
GaneshVKRamakrishnaKGhistaDN. Biomechanics of bone-fracture fixation by stiffness-graded plates in comparison with stainless-steel plates. Biomed Eng Online2005; 4: 46.
22.
SaidpourSH. Assessment of carbon fibre composite fracture fixation plate using finite element analysis. Ann Biomed Eng2006; 34: 1157–1163.
23.
BougheraraHBureauMNYahiaLH. Bone remodeling in a new biomimetic polymer composite hip stem. J Biomed Mater Res A2010; 92: 164–174.
24.
EbrahimiHRabinovichMVuletaV. Biomechanical properties of an intact, injured, repaired, and healed femur: an experimental and computational study. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2012; 16: 121–135.
25.
DennisMGSimonJAKummerFJ. Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures: a biomechanical comparison of two techniques. J Orthop Trauma2001; 15: 177–180.
26.
DubovAKimSYRShahS. 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 in Medicine2011; 225: 857–865.
27.
FulkersonEKovalKPrestonCF. Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures associated with cemented femoral stems: a biomechanical comparison of locked plating and conventional cable plates. J Orthop Trauma2006; 20: 89–93.
28.
ShahSKimSYRDubovA. 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 in Medicine2011; 225: 845–856.
29.
ShahSBougheraraHSchemitschEH. Biomechanical stress maps of an artificial femur obtained using a new infrared thermography technique validated by strain gages. Med Eng Phys2012; 34: 1496–1502.
30.
HuiskesRvan RietbergenB. Biomechanics of bone. In: MowVCHuiskesR (eds) Basic orthopaedic biomechanics and mechano-biology. 3rd ed.Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2005, pp.123–179.
31.
TencerAFJohnsonKD (eds). Biomechanics in orthopedic trauma: bone fracture and fixation. Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott, 1994, pp.18–34.
32.
HenchLLWilsonJ. Introduction In: HenchLLWilsonJ (eds) An introduction to bioceramics. Singapore: World Scientific, 1993, pp.1–24.
33.
DavyDTKotzarGMBrownRH. Telemetric force measurements across the hip after total arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am1988; 70: 45–50.
34.
LiBAspdenRM. Composition and mechanical properties of cancellous bone from the femoral head of patients with osteoporosis or osteoarthritis. J Bone Miner Res1997; 12: 641–651.
35.
PapiniMZderoRSchemitschEH. The biomechanics of human femurs in axial and torsional loading: comparison of finite element analysis, human cadaveric femurs, and synthetic femurs. J Biomech Eng2007; 129: 12–19.
36.
DavisETOlsenMZderoR. Femoral neck fracture following hip resurfacing: the effect of alignment of the femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg Br2008; 90: 1522–1527.
37.
DavisETOlsenMZderoR. A biomechanical and finite element analysis of femoral neck notching during hip resurfacing. J Biomech Eng2009; 131: 041002-1–041002-8.
38.
HyodoKInomotoMMaWW. Thermoelastic femoral stress imaging for experimental evaluation of hip prosthesis design. JSME Int J C: Mech Sy2001; 44: 1065–1071.
ShahS. A biomechanical investigation of the surface stress of a synthetic femur using infrared thermography validated by strain gauge measurements. MASc Thesis, Ryerson University, Canada, 2011.
GhoshKKKarbhariVM. A critical review of infrared thermography as a method for non-destructive evaluation of FRP rehabilitated structures. Int J Mater Prod Tec2006; 25: 241–266.
MihalkoWMBeaudoinAJCardeaJA. Finite-element modelling of femoral shaft fracture fixation techniques post total hip arthroplasty. J Biomech1992; 25: 469–476.
46.
ZanettiEMMussoSSAudeninoAL. Thermoelastic stress analysis by means of a standard thermocamera. Exp Techniques2007; 31(2): 42–50.
47.
KohlesSSVanderbyRJr.Thermographic strain analysis of the proximal canine femur. Med Eng Phys1997; 19: 262–266.
48.
BougheraraHRahimEShahS. A preliminary biomechanical assessment of a polymer composite hip implant using an infrared thermography technique validated by strain gage measurements. J Biomech Eng2011; 133: 074503-1–074503-6.
49.
HarwoodNCummingsWM. Applications of thermoelastic stress analysis. Strain1986; 22(1): 7–12.
50.
HuiskesRWeinansHGrootenboerHJ. Adaptive bone-remodeling theory applied to prosthetic-design analysis. J Biomech1987; 20: 1135–1150.
51.
BougheraraHZderoRMiricM. The biomechanics of the T2 femoral nailing system: a comparison of synthetic femurs with finite element analysis. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2009; 223: 303–314.
52.
TalbotMZderoRGarneauD. Fixation of long bone segmental defects: a biomechanical study. Injury2008; 39: 181–186.
53.
BougheraraHZderoRDubovA. A preliminary biomechanical study of a novel carbon-fibre hip implant versus standard metallic hip implants. Med Eng Phys2011; 33: 121–128.
54.
BenliSAksoySHavitciogluH. Evaluation of bone plate with low-stiffness material in terms of stress distribution. J Biomech2008; 41: 3229–3235.
55.
BougheraraHZderoRMahboobZ. The biomechanics of a validated finite element model of stress shielding in a novel hybrid total knee replacement. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2010; 224: 1209–1219.
56.
McConnellAJYooDJZderoR. Methods of operative fixation of the acromioclavicular joint: a biomechanical comparison. J Orthop Trauma2007; 21: 248–253.
