A finite element analysis of a low-profile femoral neck system of screws in sleeves in a vertical femoral neck fracture model

• Published in: BMC musculoskeletal disorders 2024-06, Vol.25 (1), p.446-14, Article 446
• Main Authors: Sun, Jun, Wu, Le, Fang, Nan, Qiao, Wenze, Liu, Lifeng
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biomechanical Phenomena; Biomechanics; Bone Screws; Comparative analysis; Compression; Computer software industry; Design; Equipment and supplies; Femoral neck fractures; Femoral Neck Fractures - surgery; Femoral neck system; Femur; Femur Neck - diagnostic imaging; Femur Neck - surgery; Finite Element Analysis; Finite element method; Fracture Fixation, Internal - instrumentation; Fracture Fixation, Internal - methods; Fractures; Hip; Hip joint; Humans; Internal fixation in fractures; International economic relations; Methods; Software; Stress concentration; Stress, Mechanical; Trauma; Young adults
• ISSN: 1471-2474; 1471-2474
• DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07550-7

Femoral neck system (FNS) has exhibited some drawbacks, such as non-fit of the plate with the lateral femoral cortex, postoperative pain, and the potential risk of subtrochanteric fractures. We have developed a low-profile FNS system that addresses some compatibility issues in FNS. In this study, we conducted finite element analysis on the 1-hole FNS (1 H-FNS), 2-holes FNS (2 H-FNS), and low-profile FNS (LP-FNS) and compared their biomechanical performance. After the mesh convergence analysis, we established three groups of 1 H-FNS, 2 H-FNS, and LP-FNS. The interfragmentary gap, sliding distance, shear stress, and compressive stress and the bone-implant interface compression stress, stiffness, and displacement were determined under the neutral, flexion, or extension conditions of the hip joint, respectively. The stress and displacement of the femur after the implant removal were also investigated. (1) There were no obvious differences among the three FNS groups in terms of the IFM distance. However, the LP-FNS group showed less rotational angle compared with conventional FNS (neutral: 1 H-FNS, -61.64%; 2 H-FNS, -45.40%). Also, the maximum bone-implant interface compression stress was obviously decreased under the neutral, flexion, or extension conditions of the hip joint (1 H-FNS: -6.47%, -20.59%, or -4.49%; 2 H-FNS: -3.11%, 16.70%, or -7.03%; respectively). (2) After the implant removal, there was no notable difference in the maximum displacement between the three groups, but the maximum von Mises stress displayed a notable difference between LP-FNS and 1 H-FNS groups (-15.27%) except for the difference between LP-FNS and 2 H-FNS groups (-4.57%). The LP-FNS may not only provide the same biomechanical stabilities as the 1 H-FNS and 2 H-FNS, but also have more advantages in rotational resistance especially under the neutral condition of the hip joint, in the bone-implant interface compression stress, and after the implant removal. In addition, the 1 H-FNS and 2 H-FNS have similar biomechanical stabilities except for the maximum von Mises stress after the implant removal. The femur after the LP-FNS removal not only is subjected to relatively little stress but also minimizes stress concentration areas.