↓ Skip to main content

Effect of varus and valgus alignment on implant loading after proximal femur fracture fixation

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Effect of varus and valgus alignment on implant loading after proximal femur fracture fixation
Published in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00590-016-1746-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meir Marmor, Kate Liddle, Jenni Buckley, Amir Matityahu

Abstract

More than 10 % of proximal femur fractures repaired with either a sliding hip screw and side plate (SHS-P) or a sliding hip screw and intramedullary nail (SHS-IMN) demonstrate varus malreduction. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of varus or valgus loading on comminuted intertrochanteric fractures repaired with SHS-P or SHS-IMN constructs. Unstable intertrochanteric fractures with segmental comminution were generated in 12 cadaver proximal femurs, six of which were fixed with an SHS-P and six with an SHS-IMN. Both implants had a strain gauge at the lag screw-nail-plate interface to assess implant load bearing. The load on the implants was measured with the specimens in neutral position and at 5°, 10°, and 15° of varus and valgus. Loads on both SHS-IMN and SHS-P constructs were significantly increased when loading the implants in varus and significantly decreased when loading the implants in valgus. Unlike the SHS-IMN, the SHS-P trended toward increased load bearing at 15° varus (159.1 vs. 118.5 %, P = .065) and trended toward less load bearing at 15° valgus (42.3 vs. 59.8 %, P = .06). Regardless of implant choice, avoiding varus loading on the fixation construct reduces the load on the implant. SHS-P constructs may be more affected by varus or valgus malalignment than SHS-IMN constructs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 29%
Other 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Student > Postgraduate 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 86%
Unspecified 1 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2016.
All research outputs
#11,135,253
of 12,519,471 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#272
of 570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,635
of 263,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#3
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,519,471 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 570 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.