2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2013.03.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cement augmentation of the proximal femoral nail antirotation for the treatment of osteoporotic pertrochanteric fractures—A biomechanical cadaver study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
29
1
8

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 65 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
3
29
1
8
Order By: Relevance
“…Realistic test conditions for an elderly patient population were simulated using specimens with compromised structural bone quality. Unlike other biomechanical examinations of osteoporotic bones, in this experimental setup, failing specimens showed no significant difference in BMD as compared to surviving constructs (p = 0.467) [9]. A larger number of samples might have helped to reach statistical significance regarding this point.…”
Section: Load In Newton (N) Deformation In Milimeter (Mm)mentioning
confidence: 58%
“…Realistic test conditions for an elderly patient population were simulated using specimens with compromised structural bone quality. Unlike other biomechanical examinations of osteoporotic bones, in this experimental setup, failing specimens showed no significant difference in BMD as compared to surviving constructs (p = 0.467) [9]. A larger number of samples might have helped to reach statistical significance regarding this point.…”
Section: Load In Newton (N) Deformation In Milimeter (Mm)mentioning
confidence: 58%
“…Even though the number of cycles needed to provoke failure of the constructs was not different among the three groups, the energy absorbed was greater in the cemented than in the transsacral group. Other biomechanical studies using cyclic loading protocols have shown comparable results with improved implant anchorage in osteoporotic bone in the distal radius [18], proximal humerus [35], the proximal [11] and distal femur [44], and the spine [9]. Grechenig et al [16] recently reported higher pullout forces of sacroiliac screws after cement augmentation, even though pullout strength may not be a well-chosen parameter for assessment of construct stability after pelvic fracture stabilization.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ebenso zeigten biomechanische Untersuchungen eine höhere Belastbarkeit des zementaugmentierten PFNA zur Versorgung osteoporoseassoziierter AO31-A2.3-Frakturen gegenüber der nicht zementierten Kontrolle [6].…”
Section: Pfna-marknagelosteosyntheseunclassified