Prophylactic augmentation implants in the proximal femur for hip fracture prevention: An in silico investigation of simulated sideways fall impacts
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Femoral fractures from sideways falls in the elderly are associated with significant rates of morbidity and mortality. Approaches to prevent these catastrophic injuries include pharmacological treatments, which have limited efficacy. Prophylactic femoral augmentation systems are a promising alternative that are gaining prominence by addressing the most debilitating osteoporosis-related fracture. We have developed finite element models (FEMs) of a novel experimental sideways fall simulator for cadavers. By virtue of the range of specimens and injury outcomes, these FEMs are well-suited to the evaluation of such implants. The purpose of this study was to use the FEMs to evaluate the mechanical effectiveness of three different prophylactic femoral augmentation systems. Models of the Y-Strut® (Hyprevention®, Pessac, France), Gamma Nail® (Stryker, Kalamazoo, USA), and a simple lag screw femoral fracture implant systems were placed into FEMs of five cadaveric pelvis-femur constructs embedded in a soft tissue surrogate, which were then subject to simulated sideways falls at seven impact velocities. Femur-only FEMs were also evaluated. Peak impact forces and peak acetabular forces were examined, and failure was evaluated using a strain-based criterion. We found that the femoral augmentation systems increased the peak forces prior to fracture, but were unable to prevent fracture for severe impacts. The Gamma Nail® system consistently produced the largest strength increases relative to the unaugmented femur for all five specimens in both the pendulum-drop FEMs and the femur-only simulations. In some cases, the same implant appeared to cause fractures in the acetabulum. The femur-only FEMs showed larger force increases than the pendulum-drop simulations, which suggests that the results of the femur-only simulations may not represent sideways falls as accurately as the soft tissue-embedded pendulum-drop simulations. The results from this study demonstrate the ability to simulate a high energy phenomenon and the effect of implants in an in silico environment. The results also suggest that implants could increase the force applied to the proximal femur during impact. Fracture outcomes from the tested implants can be used to inform the design of future devices, which reaffirms the value of modelling with biofidelic considerations in the implant design process. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first paper to use more complex biofidelic FEMs to assess prophylactic femoral augmentation methods.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».