新型股骨颈骨折内固定装置治疗股骨颈骨折的实验研究
山东第一医科大学第一附属医院 (山东省千佛山医院) 骨外科学山东省风湿免疫病转化医学重点实验室, 山东济南 250000
| 摘 要： | 目的 比较新型股骨颈骨折内固定装置与DHS髋动力钢板在股骨颈骨折模型下的体外生物力学性能，并结合有限元分析评估两种内固定方式的力学响应特征。方法 采用SAWBONES标准化股骨模型模拟股骨颈骨折，分别植入新型股骨颈骨折内固定装置（实验组）和DHS髋动力钢板（对照组），每组各5件。通过静态压缩试验测定两组内固定系统的整体刚度、屈服载荷及屈服位移；通过压缩疲劳试验采用阶梯加载方法评估其疲劳耐久性能，记录不同载荷水平下的循环次数及失效情况。基于相同几何模型与材料假设建立有限元模型，在同一载荷条件下比较两组内固定系统的应力与位移分布特征。结果 静态压缩试验结果显示，实验组的整体刚度为5040.1±55.86 N/mm，屈服载荷为4369.7±52.53 N，屈服位移为1.12±0.01 mm；对照组分别为4967.6±155.07 N/mm、4161.9±96.20 N 和1.11±0.01 mm。两组在相同加载条件下的静态力学性能总体相近。压缩疲劳试验中，实验组与对照组均可在最小载荷220 N、最大载荷2200 N条件下完成100万次循环而未发生失效，疲劳耐久性能相当。有限元分析结果显示，在相同载荷条件下，两种内固定方式的最大应力及位移分布模式相似，应力集中区域主要位于内固定装置的关键受力部位。结论 新型股骨颈骨折内固定装置在体外静态强度、疲劳耐久性及有限元力学响应方面与DHS髋动力钢板总体相当，为其进一步开展相关生物学或临床研究提供了力学依据。 |
| 关 键 词： | 股骨颈骨折; 内固定; 生物力学; 有限元分析; 疲劳试验 |
| DOI： | 10.57237/j.cmf.2026.03.001 |
View:
Downloads:
收稿日期: 2026-05-07
接受日期: 2026-06-08
在线出版日期: 2026-07-28
Experimental Study of a Novel Internal Fixation Device for the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fractures
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital, Shandong Key Laboratory of Rheumatic Disease and Translational Medicine, Jinan 250000, China
| Abstract: | Objective To compare the biomechanical properties of a novel internal fixation device for femoral neck fractures with those of the dynamic hip screw (DHS) system, and to evaluate its mechanical performance under experimental conditions. Methods A standardized femoral neck fracture model was established using SAWBONES femoral specimens. The novel internal fixation device (experimental group) and the DHS system (control group) were implanted separately, with five specimens in each group. Static compression tests were performed to determine the overall stiffness, yield load, and yield displacement of the fixation constructs. Compression fatigue tests using a stepwise loading protocol were conducted to evaluate fatigue endurance by recording the number of cycles to failure at different load levels. Finite element models were established under identical geometric and material assumptions, and stress and displacement distributions were analyzed using ANSYS 15.0 software. Results In the static compression test, the experimental group demonstrated a stiffness of 5040.1 ± 55.86 N/mm, a yield load of 4369.7 ± 52.53 N, and a yield displacement of 1.12 ± 0.01 mm, while the corresponding values in the control group were 4967.6 ± 155.07 N/mm, 4161.9 ± 96.20 N, and 1.11 ± 0.01 mm, respectively. The static mechanical performance of the two groups was generally comparable. In the compression fatigue test, both fixation systems successfully completed 1,000,000 loading cycles under a minimum load of 220 N and a maximum load of 2200 N without failure, indicating similar fatigue endurance. Finite element analysis showed comparable patterns of stress concentration and displacement distribution between the two fixation constructs. Conclusion The novel internal fixation device for femoral neck fractures demonstrated biomechanical performance comparable to that of the DHS system in terms of static strength, fatigue endurance, and finite element mechanical response, providing mechanical evidence for further experimental and clinical investigations. |
| Keywords: | Femoral Neck Fracture; Internal Fixation; Biomechanics; Finite Element Analysis; Fatigue Test |
参考文献
| [1] | LIU P, ZHANG Y, SUN B, et al. Risk factors for femoral neck fracture in elderly population [J]. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban, 2021, 46(3): 272-277. https://doi.org/10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2021.190378 |
| [2] | ZHANG C, FENG J, WANG S, et al. Incidence of and trends in hip fracture among adults in urban China: A nationwide retrospective cohort study [J]. PLoS Medicine, 2020, 17(8): e1003180. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003180 |
| [3] | XIA W, ZHANG A, QIU B, et al. Femoral neck fracture after femoral head necrosis: A case report and review of the literature [J]. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2023, 24(1): 853. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06992-9 |
| [4] | ZHOU Y, ZHANG Y, LU P, et al. An overview on the treatment strategies of non-displaced femoral neck fracture in the elderly [J]. Arthroplasty, 2022, 4(1): 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-022-00111-0 |
| [5] | SIAVASHI B, AALIREZAEI A, MOOSAVI M, et al. A comparative study between multiple cannulated screws and dynamic hip screw for fixation of femoral neck fracture in adults [J]. International Orthopaedics, 2015, 39(10): 2069-2071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2881-9 |
| [6] | RAMADANOV N, JÓŹWIAK K, HAUPTMANN M, et al. Cannulated screws versus dynamic hip screw versus hemiarthroplasty versus total hip arthroplasty in patients with displaced and non-displaced femoral neck fractures: A systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis of 5703 patients [J]. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 2023, 18(1): 625. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-04114-8 |
| [7] | ELGEIDI A, EL NEGERY A, ABDELLATIF M S, et al. Dynamic hip screw and fibular strut graft for fixation of fresh femoral neck fracture with posterior comminution [J]. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 2017, 137(10): 1363-1369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2758-z |
| [8] | GAO Z, WANG M, SHEN B, et al. Treatment of Pauwels type III femoral neck fracture with medial femoral neck support screw: A biomechanical and clinical study [J]. Scientific Reports, 2021, 11(1): 21418. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01010-1 |
| [9] | CUI H, WEI W, SHAO Y, et al. Finite element analysis of fixation effect for femoral neck fracture under different fixation configurations [J]. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 2022, 25(2): 132-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2021.1935899 |
| [10] | ZHU J, LI Y, ZHANG Y, et al. Clinical outcome and biomechanical analysis of dynamic hip screw combined with derotation screw in treating displaced femoral neck fractures based on different reduction qualities in young patients (≤65 years of age) [J]. BioMed Research International, 2022, 2022: 9505667. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9505667 |
| [11] | HONG H, SHA M, CHEN Z, et al. Comparison of dynamic hip screw with anti-rotation screw and femoral neck system internal fixation for the treatment of Garden II-IV type femoral neck fractures [J]. Technology and Health Care, 2024, 32(6): 4009-4017. https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-231547 |
| [12] | DABIS J, ABDUL-JABAR H B, DABIS H. Implant failure in a proximal femoral fracture treated with dynamic hip screw fixation [J]. Journal of Surgical Case Reports, 2015, 2015(7): rjv064. https://doi.org/10.1093/jscr/rjv064 |
| [13] | JIANG X, LIANG K, DU G, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of different internal fixation methods based on finite element analysis for Pauwels type III femoral neck fracture [J]. Injury, 2022, 53(10): 3115-3123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2022.08.038 |
| [14] | RUSSELL R D, HUO M H, RODRIGUES D C, et al. Stem geometry changes initial femoral fixation stability of a revised press-fit hip prosthesis: A finite element study [J]. Technology and Health Care, 2016, 24(6): 865-872. https://doi.org/10.3233/THC-161235 |
| [15] | SUN X, LU Y, HUANG Y, et al. Finite element analysis of six internal fixations in the treatment of Pauwels type III femoral neck fracture [J]. Orthopaedic Surgery, 2024, 16(6): 1514-1525. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.14069 |
