Abstract
Purpose: Cephalomedullary nails rely on a large lag screw that provides fixation into the femoral head. There is an option to statically lock the lag screw (static mode) or to allow the lag screw to move within the nail to compress the intertrochanteric fracture (dynamic mode). The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical stiffness of static and dynamic modes for a cephalomedullary nail used to fix an unstable peritrochanteric fracture.
Method: Thirty intact synthetic femur specimens (Model #3406, Pacific Research Laboratories, Vashon, WA) were potted into cement blocks distally for testing on an Instron 8874 (Instron, Canton, MA). A long cephalomedullary nail (Long Gamma 3 Nail, Stryker, Mahwah, NJ) was then inserted into each of the femurs. An unstable four-part fracture was created, anatomically reduced, and the cephallomedullary nail was reinserted. Mechanical tests were conducted for axial, lateral, and torsional stiffness with the lag screws in:
-
static and
-
dynamic modes.
A paired student’s t test was used to compare the 2 modes.
Results: The axial stiffness of the cephalomedullary nail was significantly greater (p< 0.01) in the static mode (484.3±80.2N/mm) than in the dynamic mode (424.1±78.0N/mm) (Fig.2A). Similarly, the lateral bending stiffness of the nail was significantly greater (p< 0.01) in the static mode (113.9±8.4N/mm) than in the dynamic mode (109.5±8.8N/mm). The torsional stiffness of the nail was significantly greater (p=0.02) in the dynamic mode (114.5±28.2N/mm) than in the static mode (111.7±27.0N/mm).
A post hoc power analysis with & #945;=0.05 and & #946;=0.20 revealed that the paired t test on 30 samples was sufficiently powered to determine a difference in mean axial stiffness of 33.0N/mm (6.8% of static stiffness), a difference in mean lateral bending stiffness of 3.6N/mm (3.2% of static stiffness) and a difference in mean torsional stiffness of 3.4N/mm (3.0% of static stiffness).
Conclusion: Our results show that there is a 60N/mm reduction in axial stiffness of the cephalomedullary nail when the lag screw is changed from static to dynamic mode. This represents a 12.4% reduction in axial stiffness with a change from axial to dynamic modes which may be clinically significant. The differences in lateral (4.4N/mm, 3.9%) and torsional (2.8N/mm, 2.4%) are small enough that they are likely not clinically significant. We felt that a difference of greater than 10% in axial stiffness and a difference of greater than 5% in lateral or torsional stiffness would be clinically significant. Our study was adequately powered to detect these differences. Given the significant reduction in axial stiffness with dynamization of the cephalomedullary nail construct, we recommend use of the static mode when treating unstable peritrochanteric fractures with a cephalomedullary nail.
Correspondence should be addressed to: COA, 4150 Ste. Catherine St. West Suite 360, Westmount, QC H3Z 2Y5, Canada. Email: meetings@canorth.org
