Abstract

Abstract

Introduction and Objective

The most common paediatric orthopaedic injury requiring hospital admission is a femoral fracture. There is debate regarding the optimal surgical technique for fixing femoral diaphyseal fractures in children aged 4 to 12 years. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) have issued relevant guidelines, however, there is limited evidence to support these. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the complication rate following flexible intramedullary nailing (FIN), plate fixation and external fixation (EF) for traumatic femoral diaphyseal fractures in children aged 4 to 12.

Introduction and Objective

An important subset of patients is dissatisfied after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) due to residual functional impairment. This study investigated the assessment of objectively measured step-up performance following TJA, to identify patients with poor functional improvement after surgery, and to predict residual functional impairment during early postoperative rehabilitation. Secondary, longitudinal changes of block step-up (BS) transfers were compared with functional changes of subjective patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) following TJA.

Abstract

Restoring native hip anatomy and biomechanics is important to create a well-functioning total hip arthroplasty (THA). Hip offset and leg length are regarded as the most important biomechanical characteristics. This study investigated their association with clinical outcomes including patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and functional tests. This prospective cohort study was conducted in 77 patients undergoing primary THA (age=65±11 years). Hip offset and leg length were measured on anteroposterior radiographs of the hip pre- and postoperatively. Participants completed the Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and performed functional tests (i.e. gait, single leg stance, sit-to-stand, block step-up) preoperatively, and 3 and 12 months postoperatively. A wearable motion sensor was used to derive biomechanical parameters. Associations between radiographic and functional outcomes were investigated with the Spearman's rho correlation coefficient. Subgroup comparisons were conducted for patients with more than 15% decreased or increased femoral offset after THA. Differences in postoperative offset and leg length had little impact on clinical outcomes. Femoral offset subgroups demonstrated no significantly different WOMAC function scores. In functional tests, patients with >15% decreased femoral offset after THA demonstrated more sagittal plane motion during block step-up (14.43° versus 10.66°; p=0.04) while patients with >15% increased femoral after THA demonstrated more asymmetry of frontal plane motion during block step-up (34.05% versus 14.18%; p=0.03). To create a well-functioning THA, there seems to be a reasonable safe zone regarding the reconstruction of offset and leg length.

The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes and survivorship of the Triathlon knee replacement at 7 years after surgery. A cohort of 266 patients receiving a Triathlon knee replacement were assessed before surgery and at 3 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years and 7 years post-operation. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the WOMAC, KOOS Knee-Related Quality of Life scale, Satisfaction Scale and questions on kneeling ability and whether they regretted having the operation. Data on survivorship was collected from self-report and medical records. At 7 years after surgery, 32 patients were deceased, and 17 patients were withdrawn. Of the 217 patients remaining in the study, 164 (76%) returned a completed study questionnaire. At 7 years after surgery, 92% of patients reported an improvement in their WOMAC Pain score greater than the minimally clinically important improvement (defined as improvement of ≥9 points from before surgery) and 82% reported this in their WOMAC Function score (defined as improvement of ≥12 points). Knee-related quality of life was good, with a mean score of 66.8 (SD 26.0) (0–100 scale, worst to best). A high percentage of patients (89%) were somewhat or very satisfied with their outcome at 7 years. Survivorship with revision as the endpoint was 96.4% (95% CI 93.2–98.1%) at 7 years post-operation. Five percent of patients regretted having their operation and 68% reported much difficulty or an inability to kneel. In conclusion, this study observed good long-term patient outcomes and survivorship of the Triathlon knee replacement.

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are uncommon but are devastating complications of total knee replacement (TKR). We analysed the risk factors of revision for PJI following primary TKR and their association with PJI at different post-operative periods. Primary TKRs and subsequent revision surgeries performed for PJI from 2003–2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry (NJR). Multilevel piece-wise exponential non-proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of the investigated factors at different post-operative periods. Patient, perioperative and healthcare system characteristics were investigated and data from the Hospital Episode Statistics for England were linked to obtain information on specific comorbidities. The index TKRs consisted of 679,010 primaries with 3,659 subsequently revised for PJI, 7% within 3 months, 6% between 3–6months, 17% between 6–12months, 27% between 1–2years and 43% ≥2 years from the index procedure. Risk factors for revision for PJI included male sex, high BMI, high ASA grade and young age. Patients with chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes and liver disease had higher risk of revision for PJI, as had patients who had a primary TKR for an indication of trauma or inflammatory arthropathy. Surgical procedure, fixation method, constraint and bearing type influenced the risk of revision for PJI. Their effects were period-specific. No or small associations were found with the operating surgeon grade, surgical volume and hospital surgical volume. These findings from the world's largest joint replacement registry show a more complex picture than the meta-analyses published to date with specific time-dependent effects for the identified risk factors.

Administration of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) reduces the risk of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) following primary total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty. The optimal type of antibiotic used, and duration of prophylaxis are subject to debate. We compared the risk of revision surgery for PJI in the first year following THA and TKA by AP regimen. A national survey collecting information on hospital-level AP regimen policy was conducted across the Netherlands and linked to data from the LROI arthroplasty registry for 2011–2015. PJI status was defined using the surgical indication reported at revision by surgeons in the registry form. Restricted cubic splines Poisson model adjusted for hospital clustering were used to conduct the comparisons on 130,712 THAs and 111,467 TKAs performed across 99 institutions. These included 399 THAs and 303 TKAs revised for an indication of PJI. Multiple shot of Cefazolin (MCZ), of cefuroxime (MCX) and single shot of Cefazolin (SCZ) were respectively administrated to 87%, 4% and 9% of patients. For THA, the rates of revision for PJI were respectively 31/10,000 person-years 95%CI[28, 35], 39[25, 59] and 23[15, 34] in the groups which received MCZ, MCX and SCZ; respectively, the rates for TKA were 27[24, 31], 40[24, 62] and 24[16, 36]. No evidence of difference between AP regimens was found in the unadjusted and adjusted model (age, gender, BMI and ASA grade). Further work is advocated to confirm whether there is an association between AP regimen collected at patient-level and the risk of subsequent revision for PJI.

Introduction

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is an uncommon but serious complication of hip replacement.

A recent systematic review of patient risk factors for PJI identified male gender, smoking status, increasing BMI, steroid use, previous joint surgery and comorbidities of diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and depression as risk factors for developing PJI. Limitations of the current literature include the short term follow up of most published studies.

We investigated the role of patient, surgical and healthcare factors on the risk of revision of a primary hip replacement for PJI at different time-points in the post-operative follow-up. It is important that those risk factors are identified so that patients can be appropriately counselled according to their individual risk profile prior to surgery and modifiable factors can be addressed to reduce the risk of PJI at an individual and healthcare system level.

The screw fastening torque applied during bone fracture fixation has a decisive influence on subsequent bone healing. Insufficient screw tightness can result in device/construct instability; conversely, excessive torques risk damaging the bone causing premature fixation failure. This effect is even more prominent in osteoporotic bone, a condition associated annually with almost 9 million fractures worldwide. During fracture fixation, screw tightening torque is applied using subjective feel. This approach may not be optimal for patient”s recovery, increasing risk of fixation failure, particularly in osteoporotic bone, and potentially require revision surgical interventions.

Besides bone density, various factors influence the performance of screw fixation. These factors include bone geometry, cortical thickness and time-dependant relaxation behaviour of the bone. If the influence of screw fastening torque on the bone and relationships between these factors was better understood, the surgical technique could be optimised to reduce the risk of complications.

Within this study, we developed an axisymmetric finite element (FE) model of bone screw tightening incorporating viscoelastic behaviour of the cortical bone such as creep and stress relaxation. The model anticipated time-dependent behaviour of the bone for different bone thickness and density after a typical bone fixation screw had been inserted. The idealised model has been developed based on CT scans of bones with varying densities and inserted screws. The model was validated through a series of experiments involving bovine tibiae (4–5 months) to evaluate the evolution of surface strains with time (Ncorr v1.2). Stress distribution was assessed in photoelastic experiments using acrylic analogues. Relaxation tests have been performed in aqueous environment for up to 48 hours to ensure the relaxation would be complete. The creep behaviour (maximum principal strain) was compared against computational predictions. Our early simulations predicted relaxation strains on the surface of the bone to be 1.1% within 24 hours comparing favourably to 1.3% measured experimentally. Stress distribution patterns were in agreement with photoelastic results.

Using experimentally derived viscoelastic properties, the model has the potential to predict creep and stress relaxation patterns after screw insertion with different fastening torques for bones with varying density and geometry. We aim to develop this into a planning tool providing guidance to surgeons for optimal tightening when using screw fixation, particularly in reduced quality bone.

Background

Total knee replacement (TKR) is an effective operation for many patients, however approximately 20% of patients experience chronic pain and functional limitations in the months and years following their TKR. If modifiable pre-operative risk factors could be identified, this would allow patients to be targeted with individualised care to optimise these factors prior to surgery and potentially improve outcomes. Psychosocial factors have also been found to be important in predicting outcomes in the first 12 months after TKR, however their impact on long-term outcomes is unknown. This study aimed to identify pre-operative psychosocial predictors of patient-reported and clinician-assessed outcomes at one year and five years after primary TKR.

Background

There is a paucity of long term data concerning the pre and postoperative patient reported function of total knee replacement. The aim of this study was to determine the mortality, implant survivorship, patient reported function and satisfaction in a cohort of 114 patients, from a single centre, who received a Kinemax total knee replacement more than 15 years ago.

Background

In the UK, over 160,000 total joint replacements are performed annually. About 1% of patients subsequently develop a deep bacterial infection and, if untreated, this can result in severe pain, disability, and death. Costs to the NHS are substantial. The INFORM (Infection Orthopaedic Management) programme aims to address gaps in knowledge relating to treatment of deep prosthetic joint infection through six work packages. The programme is supported by a patient forum and patient-partners working on oversight groups.

Background

Frequency of primary total hip (THA) and total knee (TKA) arthroplasty procedures is increasing, with a subsequent rise in revision procedures. This study aims to describe timing and excess surgical mortality associated with revision THA and TKA compared to those on the waiting list.

Background

Post-traumatic immunosuppression (PTI) after surgery increases vulnerability to nosocomial infections, sepsis, and death. Knee arthroplasty offers a sterile clinical model to characterise PTI and explore its underlying mechanisms.

Background

Recent studies have suggested that full-limb radiographs are more accurate and sensitive than short film radiographs for pre-operative measurement of the anatomical angles required to achieve optimal knee alignment in Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). However, there are drawbacks associated with their use including excess radiation to the pelvic organs, the need for specialised radiography equipment and increased cost. Given these drawbacks, we compared the use of MRI scans, a commonly performed pre-operative investigation, with short film knee radiographs for measurement of knee alignment.

Background

Over 96% of primary total hip replacements (THR) recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) are performed through a posterior or lateral surgical approach. There is no high quality evidence available to support the use of one approach over the other in primary THR and even less evidence when the outcome of revision THR is considered.

Background

Dissociation of the polyethylene liner is a known failure mechanism of the Harris Galante I and II uncemented acetabular components. The outcomes of revision surgery for this indication and the influence of time to diagnosis are not well described.

Background

The two-stage revision strategy has been claimed as being the “gold standard” for treating prosthetic joint infection. The one-stage revision strategy remains an attractive alternative option, however, its effectiveness in comparison to the two-stage strategy remains uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of one- and two-stage revision strategies to prevent re-infection after prosthetic hip infection.

Joint arthroplasty is a common surgical procedure, with over 185,000 primary hip and knee arthroplasties performed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2014. After total hip or knee arthroplasty, about 1% of patients develop deep prosthetic joint infection (PJI), which usually requires further major operations to clear the infection. Although PJI affects only a small percentage of patients it is one of the most devastating complications associated with this procedure. Research evidence has focussed on clinical effectiveness of revision surgery while there has been less focus on the impact on patients and support needs. Using a systematic review approach, the aim of this study was to assess support needs and evaluate what interventions are routinely offered to support patients undergoing treatment for PJI following hip or knee arthroplasty.

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cinahl, Social Science Citation Index, and The Cochrane Library from 1980 to February 15, 2015 for observational (prospective cohort, nested case-control, case-control, and retrospective cohort) studies, qualitative studies, and clinical trials that report on the support needs and interventions for patients being treated for PJI or other major adverse occurrences following joint arthroplasty. Data were extracted by two independent investigators and consensus reached with involvement of a third.

Of 4,161 potentially relevant citations, we identified one case-control, one prospective cohort and two qualitative studies for inclusion in the synthesis. Patients report that PJI and treatment had a profoundly negative impact affecting physical, emotional, social and economic aspects of their lives. No study evaluated support interventions for PJI or other major adverse occurrences following hip and knee arthroplasty.

The interpretation of study results is limited by variation in study design, outcome measures and the small number of relevant eligible studies. Findings show that patients undergoing treatment for PJI have extensive physical, psychological, social and economic support needs. Our review highlights a lack of evidence about support strategies for patients undergoing treatment for PJI and other adverse occurrences. There is a need to design, implement and evaluate interventions to support these patients.

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is an uncommon but serious complication of hip and knee replacement. We investigated the rates of revision surgery for the treatment of PJI following primary and revision hip and knee replacement, explored time trends, and estimated the overall surgical burden created by PJI.

We analysed the National Joint Registry for England and Wales for revision hip and knee replacements performed for a diagnosis of PJI and their index procedures from 2003–2014. The index hip replacements consisted of 623,253 primary and 63,222 aseptic revision hip replacements with 7,642 revisions subsequently performed for PJI; for knee replacements the figures were 679,010 primary and 33,920 aseptic revision knee replacements with 8,031 revisions subsequently performed for PJI. Cumulative incidence functions, prevalence rates and the burden of PJI in terms of total procedures performed as a result of PJI were calculated.

Revision rates for PJI equated to 43 out of every 10,000 primary hip replacements (2,705/623,253), i.e. 0.43%(95%CI 0.42–0.45), subsequently being revised due to PJI. Around 158 out of every 10,000 aseptic revision hip replacements performed were subsequently revised for PJI (997/63,222), i.e. 1.58%(1.48–1.67). For knees, the respective rates were 0.54%(0.52–0.56) for primary replacements, i.e. 54 out of every 10,000 primary replacements performed (3,659/679,010) and 2.11%(1.96–2.23) for aseptic revision replacements, i.e. 211 out of every 10,000 aseptic revision replacements performed (717/33,920). Between 2005 and 2013, the risk of revision for PJI in the 3 months following primary hip replacement rose by 2.29 fold (1.28–4.08) and after aseptic revision by 3.00 fold (1.06–8.51); for knees, it rose by 2.46 fold (1.15–5.25) after primary replacement and 7.47 fold (1.00–56.12) after aseptic revision. The rates of revision for PJI performed at any time beyond 3 months from the index surgery remained stable or decreased over time.

From a patient perspective, after accounting for the competing risk of revision for an aseptic indication and death, the 10-year cumulative incidence of revision hip replacement for PJI was 0.62%(95%CI 0.59–0.65) following primary and 2.25%(2.08–2.43) following aseptic revision; for knees, the figures were 0.75%(0.72–0.78) following primary replacement and 3.13%(2.81–3.49) following aseptic revision.

At a health service level, the absolute number of procedures performed as a consequence of hip PJI increased from 387 in 2005 to 1,013 in 2014, i.e. a relative increase of 2.6 fold. While 70% of those revisions were two-stage, the use of single stage revision increased from 17.6% in 2005 to 38.5% in 2014. For knees, the burden of PJI increased by 2.8 fold between 2005 and 2014. Overall, 74% of revisions were two-stage with an increase in use of single stage from 10.0% in 2005 to 29.0% in 2014.

Although the risk of revision due to PJI following hip or knee replacement is low, it is rising. Given the burden and costs associated with performing revision joint replacement for prosthetic joint infection and the predicted increased incidence of both primary and revision hip replacement, this has substantial implications for service delivery.

Patients report similar or better pain and function before revision hip arthroplasty than before primary arthroplasty but poorer outcomes after revision surgery. The trajectory of post-operative recovery during the first 12 months and any differences by type of surgery have received little attention. We explored the trajectories of change in pain and function after revision hip arthroplasty to 12-months post-operatively and compared them with those observed after primary hip arthroplasty.

We conducted a single-centre UK cohort study of patients undergoing primary (n = 80) or revision (n = 43) hip arthroplasty. WOMAC pain and function scores and 20-metres walking time were collected pre-operatively, at 3 and 12-months post-operatively. Multilevel regression models were used to chart and compare the trajectories of post-operative change (0–3 months and 3–12 months) between the types of surgery.

Patients undergoing primary arthroplasty had a total hip replacement (n=74) or hip resurfacing (n=6). Osteoarthritis was the indication for surgery in 92% of primary cases. Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty had revision of a total hip arthroplasty (n=37), hemiarthroplasty (n=2) or hip resurfacing (n=4). The most common indication for revision arthroplasty was aseptic loosening (n=29); the remaining indications were pain (n=4), aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesion (n=4) or other reasons (n=6). Primary (87%) and revision arthroplasties (98%) were mostly commonly performed via a posterior surgical approach.

The improvements in pain and function following revision arthroplasty occurred within the first 3-months following operation (WOMAC-pain, p<0.0001; WOMAC-function, p<0.0001; timed 20-metres walk, p<0.0001) with no evidence of further change beyond this initial period (p>0.05)

While the pattern of recovery after revision arthroplasty was similar to that observed after primary arthroplasty, improvements in the first 3-months were smaller after revision compared to primary arthroplasty (p<0.0001). Patients listed for revision surgery reported lower pre-operative pain levels (p=0.03) but similar post-operative levels (p=0.268) compared to those undergoing primary surgery. At 12-months post-operation patients who underwent a revision arthroplasty had not reached the same level of function achieved by those who underwent primary arthroplasty (WOMAC-function p=0.015; Time walk p=0.004).

Patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty should be informed that the majority of their improvement will occur in the first 3-months following surgery and that the expected improvement will be less marked than that experienced following primary surgery. More research is now required to 1.) identify whether specific in-patient and post-discharge rehabilitation tailored towards patients undergoing revision arthroplasty would improve or achieve equivalent outcomes to primary surgery and 2.) whether patients who are achieving limited improvements at 3-months post-operative would benefit from more intensive rehabilitation. This will become all the more important with the increasing volume of revision surgery and the high expectations of patients who aspire to a disease-free and active life.

Around 1% of the 185,000 primary hip and knee arthroplasties performed in the UK are followed by prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Although PJI affects a small percentage of patients, it is one of the most devastating complications associated with this procedure. Treatment usually involves further major surgery which can adversely affect patients' quality of life. Understanding current service provision provides valuable information needed to design and evaluate support interventions for patients. The aim of this survey was to identify usual care pathways and support in UK NHS orthopaedic centres for this population.

The 20 highestvolume UK NHS orthopaedic centresfor hip and knee arthroplasty account for 33–50% of all cases treated for prosthetic joint infection. Infection leads at each centre were invited to participate in a survey about usual care provision and support for PJI. Questions exploredfollow up time-points; use of standard outcome measures; multidisciplinary care plans; supportive in-patient care and care after treatment; and onward referrals. Survey responses were recorded on a standardised proforma. Data were entered into Excel for analysis, then reviewed and coded into categories and frequency statistics to describe categorical data. A descriptive summary was developed based on these categories.

Eleven of the highestvolume orthopaedic centres completed the survey. Follow-up of patients varied greatly across centres; some centres reviewed patients at weekly or 2 week intervals, while all centres saw patients at 6 weeks. Long-term follow-up varied across centres from 3–4 monthsto 12 monthly. Length of follow-up period varied from until the infection had cleared toindefinitely. Follow-up timepoints were only standardised in 4 out of 11 centres. Only 1 centre had a dedicated infection clinic. Advice on who patients should contact if they had concerns included the consultant, community nurse, extended scope practitioner or the ward, while 3 centres told patients to avoid calling their GP. Only half of the centres routinely used standardised outcome measures with patients with PJI. The majority of centres provided standard physiotherapy and occupational therapy (OT) to in-patients while approximately half also offered social support. Only one centre provided dedicated physiotherapy and OT on a separate infection ward. Three centres provided hospital at home or community services to patients in-between operative stages. Only 3 out of 11 centres stated they had specific multidisciplinary care plans in place for patients. Once discharged most patients were provided with physiotherapy, OT and social services if needed. Common barriersto referral included complexities of referring patients outside the hospital catchment area;lack of availability of community services, and shortage of staff including physiotherapists. Delays in rehab and social services could also be problematic.

Findings show wide variation intreatment pathways and support for patients treated for PJI, both as inpatients and in the community. Only one of the 11 centreswho participated had a dedicated infection clinic. Only one centre suggested they individualised their physiotherapy support. A number of barriers exist to referring patients on to other support services after revision surgery.

Around 1% of total hip replacements are follow by prosthetic joint infection (PJI). There is uncertainty about best treatment method for PJI, and the most recent high quality systematic reviews in unselected patients indicates that re-infection rates following one-stage and two-stage revision arthroplasty are relatively similar. In the absence of evidence randomised controlled trials will help to identify the most clinically and cost-effective treatment for PJI. Before such trials are conducted, there is a need to establish reasons for current practice and to identify whether trials are feasible. This study aimed to deliver research that would inform trial design. Specifically, we aimed to characterise consultant orthopaedic surgeons' decisions about performing either one-stage or two-stage exchange arthroplasty for patients with PJI after hip replacement and to identify whether a randomised trial comparing one-stage with two-stage revision would be possible.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 consultant surgeons from 5 high-volume National Health Service (NHS) orthopaedic departments in the UK. Surgeons were sampled on the basis that they perform revision surgery for PJI after hip arthroplasty and final sample size was justified on the basis of thematic saturation. Surgeons were interviewed face-to-face (n=2) or via telephone (n=10). The interview study took place before design of a multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial comparing patient and clinical outcomes after one-stage or two-stage revision arthroplasty. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and analysed using a thematic approach, with 25% of transcripts independently double-coded.

Results: There is no standard surgical response to the treatment of PJI and surgeons manage a complex balance of factors when choosing a surgical strategy. These include multiple patient-related factors, their own knowledge and expertise, available infrastructure and the infecting organism. Surgeons questioned whether evidence supports the emergence of two-stage revision as a method. They described the use of loosely cemented articulating spacers as a way of managing uncertainty about best treatment method. All surgeons were supportive of a randomised trial to compare one-stage and two-stage revision surgery for PJI after hip replacement. Surgeons reported that they would put patients forward for randomisation when there was uncertainty about best treatment.

Surgeons highlighted the need for evidence to support their choice of revision. Some surgeons now use revision methods that can better address both clinical outcomes and patients' quality of life, such as loosely cemented articulating spacers. Surgeons thought that a randomised controlled trial comparing one-stage and two-stage exchange joint replacement is needed and that randomisation would be feasible. The next stage of the work was to design a multi-centre randomised controlled trial, this has been achieved and the trial is now ongoing in the UK.

Femoral head collapse due to avascular necrosis (AVN) is a relatively rare occurrence following intertrochanteric fractures; however, with over thirty-thousand intertrochanteric fractures per year in England and Wales alone, and an incidence of up to 1.16%, it is still significant. Often patients are treated with a hip fixation device, such as a sliding hip screw or X-Bolt. This study aimed to investigate the influence of three factors on the likelihood of head collapse: (1) implant type; (2) the size of the femoral head; and (3) the size of the AVN lesion.

Finite element (FE) models of an intact femur, and femurs implanted with two common hip fixation designs, the Compression Hip Screw (Smith & Nephew) and the X-Bolt (X-Bolt Orthopaedics), were developed. Experimental validation of the FE models on 4^th generation Sawbones composite femurs (n=5) found the peak failure loads predicted by the implanted model was accurate to within 14%. Following validation on Sawbones, the material modulus (E) was updated to represent cancellous (E=500MPa) and cortical (E=1GPa) bone, and the influence of implant design, head size, and AVN was examined. Four head sizes were compared: mean male (48.4 mm) and female (42.2 mm) head sizes ± two standard deviations. A conical representation of an AVN lesion with a lower modulus (1MPa) was created, and four different radii were studied. The risk of head collapse was assessed from (1) the critical buckling pressure and (2) the peak failure stress.

The likelihood of head collapse was reduced by implantation of either fixation device. Smaller head sizes and greater AVN lesion size increased the risk of femoral head collapse. These results indicate the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures with a hip fixation device does not increase the risk of head collapse; however, patient factors such as small head size and AVN severity significantly increase the risk.