Objectives The biomechanical difficulty in fixation of a Vancouver B1 periprosthetic fracture is purchase of the proximal femoral segment in the presence of the hip stem. Several newer technologies provide the ability to place bicortical locking screws tangential to the hip stem with much longer lengths of screw purchase compared to unicortical screws. This biomechanical study compares the stability of two of these newer constructs to previous methods. Methods Thirty composite synthetic femurs were prepared with cemented hip stems. The distal femur segment was osteotomized, and plates were fixed proximally with either: (1) cerclage cables; (2) locked unicortical screws; (3) a composite of locked screws and cables; or tangentially directed bicortical locking screws using either (4) a stainless steel LCP system with a Locking Attachment Plate (Synthes), or (5) a titanium alloy NCB system (Zimmer). Specimens were tested to failure in either axial or torsional quasi-static loading modes (n = 3) after 20 moderate load pre-conditioning cycles. Stiffness, maximum force, and failure mechanism were determined. Results Bicortical constructs resisted higher (by an average of at least 27%) maximum forces than the other three constructs in torsional loading (p<0.05). Cables constructs exhibited lower maximum force than all other constructs, in both axial and torsional loading. The bicortical titanium construct was stiffer than the bicortical stainless steel construct in axial loading. Conclusions Proximal fixation stability is likely improved with the use of bicortical locking screws as compared to traditional unicortical screws and cable techniques. In this study with a limited sample size, we found the addition of cerclage cables to unicortical screws may not offer much improvement in biomechanical stability of unstable B1 fractures.
Introduction Optimal management of lower extremity fractures includes early antibiotics administration, thorough irrigation and debridement, consideration of soft tissue injury, and definitive skeletal management. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of topical vancomycin powder in the treatment of open lower extremity fractures. Methods This was a retrospective case control study in which open lower extremity fractures at our institution were reviewed for development of infection (including species and sensitivity if present) and the development of unanticipated wound complications requiring intervention. Patients from 2010-2015 were treated with standard of care consistent with evidence-based literature (IV antibiotics with external fixator, intramedullary nail, etc.). Patients from 2016–18 were additionally treated with vancomycin powder applied directly to the wound before closure. All patients were monitored per the treating surgeon’s standard follow-up protocol and had follow-up of at least two months. Results This retrospective case control study comprised 434 patients. The historical control group (n = 388 patients) and treatment group (n = 46 patients) were similar for age, sex, BMI (body mass index), diabetes, smoking status, and Injury Severity Score (ISS). There were 36 infections (9.28%) in the control group compared to four infections (8.70%) in the vancomycin powder group (p = 0.901). No significant difference was seen after adjusting for age, sex, BMI, diabetes, smoking status, and ISS. The vancomycin powder group experienced significantly more wound complications (15.2%) compared to the control group (6.4%; p = 0.039), which remained significant when adjusting for multiple covariates. Conclusions Topical vancomycin powder did not reduce the infection rate when applied in the surgical site of open lower extremity fractures. Instead, the addition of topical vancomycin powder resulted in significantly more wound complications in patients with open lower extremity fractures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.