The aim of our study was to investigate whether placing of the femoral component of a hip resurfacing in valgus protected against spontaneous fracture of the femoral neck.

We performed a hip resurfacing in 20 pairs of embalmed femora. The femoral component was implanted at the natural neck-shaft angle in the left femur and with a 10° valgus angle on the right. The bone mineral density of each femur was measured and CT was performed. Each femur was evaluated in a materials testing machine using increasing cyclical loads.

In specimens with good bone quality, the 10° valgus placement of the femoral component had a protective effect against fractures of the femoral neck. An adverse effect was detected in osteoporotic specimens.

When resurfacing the hip a valgus position of the femoral component should be achieved in order to prevent fracture of the femoral neck. Patient selection remains absolutely imperative. In borderline cases, measurement of bone mineral density may be indicated.

We have evaluated four different fixation techniques for the reconstruction of a standard Mason type-III fracture of the radial head in a sawbone model. The outcome measurements were the quality of the reduction, and stability.

A total of 96 fractures was created. Six surgeons were involved in the study and each reconstructed 16 fractures with 1.6 mm fine-threaded wires (Fragment Fixation System (FFS)), T-miniplates, 2 mm miniscrews and 2 mm Kirschner (K-) wires; four fractures being allocated to each method using a standard reconstruction procedure.

The quality of the reduction was measured after definitive fixation. Biomechanical testing was performed using a transverse plane shear load in two directions to the implants (parallel and perpendicular) with respect to ultimate failure load and displacement at 50 N.

A significantly better quality of reduction was achieved using the FFS wires (Tukey’s post hoc tests, p < 0.001) than with the other devices with a mean step in the articular surface and the radial neck of 1.04 mm (sd 0.96) for the FFS, 4.25 mm (sd 1.29) for the miniplates, 2.21 mm (sd 1.06) for the miniscrews and 2.54 mm (sd 0.98) for the K-wires. The quality of reduction was similar for K-wires and miniscrews, but poor for miniplates.

The ultimate failure load was similar for the FFS wires (parallel, 196.8 N (sd 46.8), perpendicular, 212.5 N (sd 25.6)), miniscrews (parallel, 211.8 N (sd 47.9), perpendicular, 208.0 N (sd 65.9)) and K-wires (parallel, 200.4 N (sd 54.5), perpendicular, 165.2 N (sd 37.9)), but significantly worse (Tukey’s post hoc tests, p < 0.001) for the miniplates (parallel, 101.6 N (sd 43.1), perpendicular, 122.7 N (sd 40.7)). There was a significant difference in the displacement at 50 N for the miniplate (parallel, 4.8 mm (sd 2.8), perpendicular, 4.8 mm (sd 1.7)) vs FFS (parallel, 2.1 mm (sd 0.8), perpendicular, 1.9 mm (sd 0.7)), miniscrews (parallel, 1.8 mm (sd 0.5), perpendicular, 2.3 mm (sd 0.8)) and K-wires (parallel, 2.2 mm (sd 1.8), perpendicular, 2.4 mm (sd 0.7; Tukey’s post hoc tests, p < 0.001)).

The fixation of a standard Mason type-III fracture in a sawbone model using the FFS system provides a better quality of reduction than that when using conventional techniques. There was a significantly better stability using FFS implants, miniscrews and K-wires than when using miniplates.