A Biomechanical Comparison of a Locking Plate, a Nail, and a 95° Angled Blade Plate for Fixation of Subtrochanteric Femoral Fractures

Abstract

The CMN construct was biomechanically superior to either the locking plate or 95° blade plate constructs. The locking plate construct was biomechanically equivalent to the blade plate construct.

The outcome in early Cases of Treatment of Subtrochanteric Fractures with Proximal Femur locking Compression Plate

“…14 In cadaveric study, cephalomedullary nail construct in the treatment of subtrochanteric fractures would be consistently superior biomechanically to either a PF-LCP construct or a 95°angled blade plate construct when a considerable fracture gap persists. Furthermore, in the insertion of cephalomedullary nail a large portion of bone had to be removed from the proximal femur with unknown long-term effects 15 .…”

Fixation of Subtrochantric Fractures Using Distal Femoral Locking Compression Plate of Contralateral Side

“…However, comminuted and unstable subtrochanteric fractures are challenging injuries that are prone to complications [1] . Intramedullary device showed increased fracture stability when compared to extramedullary devices [7] . Even the inherently unstable fractures can be stabilised by use of intramedullary nail fixation in peritrochantric fractures and it is easy, fast to apply and guarantee stability [8,9] .…”

A comparison of proximal femoral locking plate versus 95-degree angled blade plate in the treatment of reverse intertrochanteric fractures

“…The mean time to union was 17 weeks (range [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] in the PFLP group ( Figure 1) and 18 weeks (range 16-32) in the ABP group (Figure 2). The mean ASA score was 2.7 and 3.1 in the PFLP and ABP groups, respectively.…”

“…The mean follow-up in the PFLP group was 24 months (range 18-30) and 28 months (range [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] in the ABP group. The mean time to union was 17 weeks (range [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] in the PFLP group ( Figure 1) and 18 weeks (range 16-32) in the ABP group (Figure 2).…”

“…[4,11,12,14] Recently, the proximal femoral locking plates (PFLPs) which have a fixed-angle stable construct and high pull-out strength have been developed to minimize possible complications in such fractures. [2,3,5,6,8,15,16] Biomechanical studies indicate that PFLP provides either more axial stiffness, [17,18] less torsional stiffness, [17] or similar results [19] compared to ABPs. On the other hand, PFLPs are three times more expensive compared to ABPs.…”