Objectives. Fractures of the proximal femur are a common clinical problem, and a number of orthopaedic devices are available for the treatment of such fractures. The objective of this study was to assess the rotational stability, a common failure predictor, of three different rotational control design philosophies: a screw, a helical blade and a deployable crucifix. Methods. Devices were compared in terms of the mechanical work (W) required to rotate the implant by 6° in a bone substitute material. The substitute material used was Sawbones polyurethane foam of three different densities (0.08 g/cm. 3. , 0.16 g/cm. 3. and 0.24 g/cm. 3. ). Each torsion test comprised a steady ramp of 1°/minute up to an angular displacement of 10°. Results. The deployable crucifix design (X-Bolt), was more torsionally stable, compared to both the dynamic hip screw (DHS, p = 0.008) and helical blade (DHS Blade, p= 0.008) designs in bone substitute material representative of osteoporotic bone (0.16 g/cm. 3. polyurethane foam). In 0.08 g/cm. 3. density substrate, the crucifix design (X-Bolt) had a higher resistance to torsion than the screw (DHS, p = 0.008). There were no significant differences (p = 0.101) between the implants in 0.24 g/cm. 3. density bone substitute. Conclusions. Our findings indicate that the clinical standard proximal fracture fixator design, the screw (DHS), was the least effective at resisting torsional load, and a novel crucifix design (X-Bolt), was the most effective design in resisting torsional load in bone substitute material with density representative of osteoporotic bone. At other densities the torsional stability was also higher for the X-Bolt, although not consistently significant by statistical analysis. Cite this article: J. D. Gosiewski, T. P. Holsgrove, H. S. Gill. The efficacy of rotational control designs in promoting torsional stability of hip fracture fixation. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:270–276. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.65.BJR-2017-0287.R1

Aims

Periprosthetic fracture and implant loosening are two of the major reasons for revision surgery of cementless implants. Optimal implant fixation with minimal bone damage is challenging in this procedure. This pilot study investigates whether vibratory implant insertion is gentler compared to consecutive single blows for acetabular component implantation in a surrogate polyurethane (PU) model.

Aims

Implant waste during total hip arthroplasty (THA) represents a significant cost to the USA healthcare system. While studies have explored methods to improve THA cost-effectiveness, the literature comparing the proportions of implant waste by intraoperative technology used during THA is limited. The aims of this study were to: 1) examine whether the use of enabling technologies during THA results in a smaller proportion of wasted implants compared to navigation-guided and conventional manual THA; 2) determine the proportion of wasted implants by implant type; and 3) examine the effects of surgeon experience on rates of implant waste by technology used.

Aims

Cementless acetabular components rely on press-fit fixation for initial stability. In certain cases, initial stability is more difficult to obtain (such as during revision). No current study evaluates how a surgeon’s impaction technique (mallet mass, mallet velocity, and number of strikes) may affect component fixation. This study seeks to answer the following research questions: 1) how does impaction technique affect a) bone strain generation and deterioration (and hence implant stability) and b) seating in different density bones?; and 2) can an impaction technique be recommended to minimize risk of implant loosening while ensuring seating of the acetabular component?

Objectives

Using a simple classification method, we aimed to estimate the collapse rate due to osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) in order to develop treatment guidelines for joint-preserving surgeries.