Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Applied Bionics and Biomechanics
Volume 2016, Article ID 4987831, 10 pages
Research Article

The Analysis of Biomechanical Properties of Proximal Femur after Implant Removal

1Scoliosis Research Institute, Department of Orthopedics, Korea University Medical College, Guro Hospital, Guro 2-dong, Guro-gu, Seoul 152-703, Republic of Korea
2Osong Medical Innovation Foundation, Medical Device Development Center, Cheongju 363-951, Republic of Korea
3The Division of Biological Sciences at The University of Chicago, Undergraduate Class of 2014, 5801 South Ellis Avenue Chicago, IL 60637, USA
4Jung-Hwa Girls High School, San 105 Beomeo-4-dong Sunsung-gu, Daegu 706-819, Republic of Korea

Received 20 January 2016; Revised 20 May 2016; Accepted 13 June 2016

Academic Editor: Luis Gracia

Copyright © 2016 Jae Hyuk Yang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Introduction. To compare the biomechanical stability of the femur following the removal of proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA-II) and dynamic hip screw (DHS). Material and Methods. 56 paired cadaveric femurs were used as experimental and control groups. In the experimental group, PFNA-II and DHS were randomly inserted into femurs on both sides and then removed. Thereafter, compression load was applied until fracture occurred; biomechanical stability of the femurs and associated fracture patterns were studied. Results. The ultimate load and stiffness of the control group were  N and  N/mm, respectively. These were significantly higher than experimental group (, <0.001) following the removal of PFNA-II ( N and  N/mm) and DHS ( N and  N/mm). No statistical differences in these values were found between the 2 device groups (, 0.71), regardless of age groups. However, fracture patterns were different between two devices, intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. Conclusions. Mechanical stability of the proximal femurs does not differ after the removal of 2 different of fixation devices regardless of the age. However, it was significantly lower compared to an intact femur. Different fracture patterns have been shown following the removal of different fixation devices as there are variations in the site of stress risers for individual implants.