Evaluatıon of different fıxatıon methods in periprosthetic femoral fractures under axial and rotatıonal loadıng(biomechanical study)

2.SUMMARY:EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT FIXATION METHODS N PER PROSTHET CFEMORAL FRACTURES UNDER AXIAL AND ROTATIONAL LOADING(BIOMECHANICAL STUDY)Dr. Günhan D LBERDokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Tıp FakültesiOrtopedi ve Travmatoloji Anabilim Dalınciraltı- zmirAccording to the increase in primary and revision total kneearthroplasties,periprosthetic fractures saw as a higher incidance.The patientpopulation is geriatric,osteoporotic and has systemic disorders so treatment is difficultand complications are frequent.Treatment choise is very important.In this study fourdifferent fixation methods used for Rorabeck type 2 supracondylar femoral fractureand stability under axial and rotational loading compared.In this study, Rorabeck type 2 supracondylar fracture model made by usingsix sawbone left compozite femur. Deplacement measured under axial and rotationalloads. First group is 95° angular plate, second is L SS plate,third is revision totalknee arthroplasty and the fourth group is intramedullary nail. Axial and rotationalloading tests taken by videoextansiometer and analyzed by mann-whitney U test.As a result , in axial loading tests, the most stable fixation was revision totalknee arthroplasty, retrograde intramedullary nail was second. There was no statisticaldifferent between revision total knee arthroplasty, plate and nail. Angular plate andLISS plate had similar results, had less stability than revision total knee arthroplasty.In rotational loading tests, revision total knee arthroplasty had statistically significantstability than the others. Plate had similar results and the least stable was retrogradeintramedullary nail.Key words: Arthroplasty, supracondylar fracture, implant, stability.2