The Medoff sliding plate and a standard sliding hip screw for unstable intertrochanteric fractures: A mechanical comparison in cadaver femurs

Authors

  • Ola Olsson
  • Frederick J Kummer
  • Leif Ceder
  • Kenneth J Koval
  • Sune Larsson
  • Joseph D Zuckerman

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3109/17453679809000927

Abstract

The Medoff sliding plate has a dual side capability along both the femoral shaft and neck to increase theoretically interfragmentary compression and load-sharing in hip fractures. We studied intertrochanteric fracture fixation in cadaveric bone to determine whether this device has a mechanical advantage over a standard sliding hip screw. 2-part and 4-part fractures were created in 12 cadaver femurs. The fractures were fixated and sequentially destabilized; bone and plate strains and fragment displacements were determined during testing, as a function of applied physiological loads before and after short-term cycling. The Medoff sliding plate imposed a higher mean medial cortex strain than the sliding hip screw in all fracture models and at all loading levels, and the difference was statistically significant in the 2-part and in the unstable 4-part fracture models. The loading of the medial cortex region after cycling was approximately 50% higher in the Medoff samples than in the sliding hip screw samples. There were no significant differences in plate strains, fracture displacements or load to failure between the 2 devices. These observations favor the dual sliding principle as regards providing fracture compression and load-sharing, which may explain low failure rates in clinical series of unstable intertrochanteric fractures, treated with the Medoff sliding plate.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

1998-01-01

How to Cite

Olsson, O., Kummer, F. J., Ceder, L., Koval, K. J., Larsson, S., & Zuckerman, J. D. (1998). The Medoff sliding plate and a standard sliding hip screw for unstable intertrochanteric fractures: A mechanical comparison in cadaver femurs. Acta Orthopaedica, 69(3), 266–272. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453679809000927