Finite element comparison of retrograde intramedullary nailing and locking plate fixation with/without an intramedullary allograft for distal femur fracture following total knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Periprosthetic distal femur fracture after total knee arthroplasty due to the stress-shielding phenomenon is a challenging problem. Retrograde intramedullary nail (RIMN) or locking plate (LP) fixation with/without a strut allograft has been clinically used via less invasive stabilization surgery (LISS) for the treatment of these periprosthetic fractures. However, their biomechanical differences in construct stability and implant stress have not been extensively studied, especially for the osteoporotic femur. METHODS: This study used a finite-element method to evaluate the differences between RIMN, LP, and LP/allograft fixation in treating periprosthetic distal femur fractures. There were sixteen variations of two fracture angles (transverse and oblique), two loading conditions (compression and rotation), and four bony conditions (one normal and three osteoporotic). Construct stiffness, fracture micromotion, and implant stress were chosen as the comparison indices. RESULTS: The LP/allograft construct provides both lateral and middle supports to the displaced femur. Comparatively, the LP and RIMN constructs, respectively, transmit the loads through the lateral and middle paths, thus providing more unstable support to the construct and high stressing on the implants. The fracture pattern plays a minor role in the construct stabilization of the three implants. In general, the biomechanical performances of the RIMN and LP constructs were comparable and significantly inferior to those of the LP/allograft construct. The bone quality should be evaluated prior to the selection of internal fixators. CONCLUSIONS: The LP/allograft construct significantly stabilizes the fracture gap, reduces the implant stress, and serves as the recommended fixation for periprosthetic distal femur fracture.

Biomechanical comparison of three stand-alone lumbar cages--a three-dimensional finite element analysis.

BACKGROUND: For anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), stand-alone cages can be supplemented with vertebral plate, locking screws, or threaded cylinder to avoid the use of posterior fixation. Intuitively, the plate, screw, and cylinder aim to be embedded into the vertebral bodies to effectively immobilize the cage itself. The kinematic and mechanical effects of these integrated components on the lumbar construct have not been extensively studied. A nonlinearly lumbar finite-element model was developed and validated to investigate the biomechanical differences between three stand-alone (Latero, SynFix, and Stabilis) and SynCage-Open plus transpedicular fixation. All four cages were instrumented at the L3-4 level. METHODS: The lumbar models were subjected to the follower load along the lumbar column and the moment at the lumbar top to produce flexion (FL), extension (EX), left/right lateral bending (LLB, RLB), and left/right axial rotation (LAR, RAR). A 10 Nm moment was applied to obtain the six physiological motions in all models. The comparison indices included disc range of motion (ROM), facet contact force, and stresses of the annulus and implants. RESULTS: At the surgical level, the SynCage-open model supplemented with transpedicular fixation decreased ROM (>76%) greatly; while the SynFix model decreased ROM 56-72%, the Latero model decreased ROM 36-91%, in all motions as compared with the INT model. However, the Stabilis model decreased ROM slightly in extension (11%), lateral bending (21%), and axial rotation (34%). At the adjacent levels, there were no obvious differences in ROM and annulus stress among all instrumented models. CONCLUSIONS: ALIF instrumentation with the Latero or SynFix cage provides an acceptable stability for clinical use without the requirement of additional posterior fixation. However, the Stabilis cage is not favored in extension and lateral bending because of insufficient stabilization.