The influence of composite bone plates in Vancouver femur B1 fracture fixation after post-operative,and healed bone stages: A finite element study

Abstract

Conventional stainless steel or titanium plates are used for bone fracture fixation to provide support at fracture location. Plates with high elastic modulus reduce the transfer of compressive load at the fracture location (due to stress shielding), causing failure. The objective of the study is to find for composite bone plates with different types of fibers and varied fiber orientations for post-operative (PO) and healed bone (HB) conditions which can reduce the stress shielding. Femur fracture fixation was constructed with 12 holes narrow type with metal and composite bone plates. The fracture gap was constructed with soft bone region for post-operative (PO) condition and harder bone for healed bone (HB). Composite bone plates with different configurations (fiber directions) and types (thickness and width) were analyzed to study the stress distribution and movement in the fracture location. The models were analyzed and the stresses in plate and callus, movement and strain in axial and shear direction in both metal and composite bone plates were studied. The metal and composite plates (carbon fiber/epoxy, fiberglass/epoxy, and flax/epoxy) used for most common Vancouver type B1 fracture to observe the biomechanical behavior of different models in PO and HB condition. The FE simulation on different configurations and types of composite plates provide in-depth idea about choosing the suitable composite bone plate. There are variations in behavior for varying types and configurations, but the performance of most of the plates are either better or similar to that of metal plate, except the plates with higher width.

Keywords

Femoral fracture bone plates fiber direction post-operative healed bone

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Fenelon

Murphy

Kearns

, et al. A growing challenge: the rise of femoral periprosthetic fractures - an 11-year observational study. Surgeon 2020; 18(1): 19–23.

Menken

Rodriguez

. Femoral revision for periprosthetic fracture in total hip arthroplasty. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2020; 11(1): 16–21.

Karam

Campbell

Desai

, et al. Periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures in cemented and uncemented stems according to Vancouver classification: observation of a new fracture pattern. J Orthop Surg Res 2020; 15(1): 100.

Masri

Meek

Duncan

. Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 420: 80–95.

Yasen

Haddad

. Periprosthetic fractures: bespoke solutions. Bone Joint J 2014; 96: 48–55.

Lindahl

Malchau

Odén

, et al. Risk factors for failure after treatment of a periprosthetic fracture of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88(1): 26–30.

Rand

Chao

, et al. A comparison of the effect of open intramedullary nailing and compression-plate fixation on fracture-site blood flow and fracture union. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1981; 63(3): 427–442.

Fujihara

Huang

Ramakrishna

, et al. Performance study of braided carbon/PEEK composite compression bone plates. Biomaterials 2003; 24(15): 2661–2667.

Ali

French

Hastings

, et al. Carbon fibre composite bone plates. Development, evaluation and early clinical experience. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990; 72(4): 586–591.

10.

Müller

Perren

Allgöwer

, et al. Manual of internal fixation: techniques recommended by the AO-ASIF group. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media, 1991.

11.

Liu

Buza

Leucht

. Clinical aspects of fracture healing: an overview. Clin Rev Bone Miner Metab 2015; 13(4): 208–221.

12.

Tonino

Davidson

Klopper

, et al. Protection from stress in bone and its effects. Experiments with stainless steel and plastic plates in dogs. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1976; 58(1): 107–113.

13.

Wolff

. The law of bone remodelling. Translated by Maquet

Furlong

. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Springer, 1986, p.8.

14.

Ebrahimi

Rabinovich

Vuleta

, et al. Biomechanical properties of an intact, injured, repaired, and healed femur: an experimental and computational study. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2012; 16: 121–135.

15.

Kim

Chang

. Finite element analysis using interfragmentary strain theory for the fracture healing process to which composite bone plates are applied. Compos Struct 2011; 93(11): 2953–2962.

16.

Son

Mehboob

Chang

. 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 Eng 2014; 58: 443–450.

17.

Fouda

Mostafa

Saker

. Numerical study of stress shielding reduction at fractured bone using metallic and composite bone-plate models. Ain Shams Eng J 2019; 10(3): 481–488.

18.

Samiezadeh

Tavakkoli Avval

Fawaz

, et al. On optimization of a composite bone plate using the selective stress shielding approach. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2015; 42: 138–153.

19.

Dhason

Roy

Datta

. A biomechanical study on the laminate stacking sequence in composite bone plates for Vancouver femur B1 fracture fixation. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2020; 196: 105680.

20.

Leonidou

Moazen

Lepetsos

, et al. The biomechanical effect of bone quality and fracture topography on locking plate fixation in periprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury 2015; 46(2): 213–217.

21.

Bergmann

Deuretzbacher

Heller

, et al. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech 2001; 34(7): 859–871.

22.

Nordin

Frankel

(eds). Basic biomechanics of the musculoskeletal system. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001.

23.

Poitout

(ed.). Biomechanics and biomaterials in orthopedics. London; New York, NY: Springer, 2004.

24.

Bagheri

Tavakkoli Avval

Bougherara

, 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 Eng 2014; 136(9): 091002.

25.

Aro

Chao

. Bone-healing patterns affected by loading, fracture fragment stability, fracture type, and fracture site compression. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993; 293: 8–17.

26.

Augat

Simon

Liedert

, et al. Mechanics and mechano-biology of fracture healing in normal and osteoporotic bone. Osteoporos Int 2005; 16 Suppl 2(2): S36–S43.

27.

Terjesen

Apalset

. The influence of different degrees of stiffness of fixation plates on experimental bone healing. J Orthop Res 1988; 6(2): 293–299.

28.

Woo

Lothringer

Akeson

, et al. Less rigid internal fixation plates: historical perspectives and new concepts. J Orthop Res 1984; 1(4): 431–449.

29.

Peters

Bachus

Davitt

. Fixation of periprosthetic femur fractures: a biomechanical analysis comparing cortical strut allograft plates and conventional metal plates. Orthopedics 2003; 26(7): 695–699.

30.

Wilson

Frei

Masri

, et al. A biomechanical study comparing cortical onlay allograft struts and plates in the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. Clin Biomech 2005; 20(1): 70–76.

31.

Schmotzer

Tchejeyan

Dall

. Surgical management of intra- and postoperative fractures of the femur about the tip of the stem in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1996; 11(6): 709–717.

32.

Talbot

Zdero

Schemitsch

. Cyclic loading of periprosthetic fracture fixation constructs. J Trauma 2008; 64(5): 1308–1312.

33.

Zdero

Walker

Waddell

, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation. J Bone Joint Surg 2008; 90(5): 1068–1077.

34.

Park

Augat

. Shear movement at the fracture site delays healing in a diaphyseal fracture model. J Orthop Res 2004; 22(5): 1156–1157.

35.

Mow

Huiskes

(eds). Basic orthopaedic biomechanics & mechano-biology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005.

36.

Samiezadeh

Tavakkoli Avval

Fawaz

, et al. Biomechanical assessment of composite versus metallic intramedullary nailing system in femoral shaft fractures: a finite element study. Clin Biomech 2014; 29(7): 803–810.

37.

Kim

Chang

. Bio-mechanical analysis of a fractured tibia with composite bone plates according to the diaphyseal oblique fracture angle. Compos B Eng 2011; 42(4): 666–674.