TY - JOUR

T1 - Poor relation between biomechanical and clinical studies for the proximal femoral locking compression plate

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Viberg, Bjarke

AU - Voergård Rasmussen, Katrine Marie

AU - Overgaard, Søren

AU - Rogmark, Cecilia

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Background and purpose — The proximal femur locking compression plate (PF-LCP) is a new concept in the treatment of hip fractures. When releasing new implants onto the market, biomechanical studies are conducted to evaluate performance of the implant. We investigated the relation between biomechanical and clinical studies on PF-LCP. Methods — A systematic literature search of relevant biomechanical and clinical studies was conducted in PubMed on December 1, 2015. 7 biomechanical studies and 15 clinical studies were included. Results — Even though the biomechanical studies showed equivalent or higher failure loads for femoral neck fracture, the clinical results were far worse, with a 37% complication rate. There were no biomechanical studies on pertrochanteric fractures. Biomechanical studies on subtrochanteric fractures showed that PF-LCP had a lower failure load than with proximal femoral nail, but higher than with angled blade plate. 4 clinical studies had complication rates less than 8% and 9 studies had complication rates between 15% and 53%. Interpretation — There was no clear relation between biomechanical and clinical studies. Biomechanical studies are generally inherently different from clinical studies, as they examine the best possible theoretical use of the implant without considering the long-term outcome in a clinical setting. Properly designed clinical studies are mandatory when introducing new implants, and they cannot be replaced by biomechanical studies.

AB - Background and purpose — The proximal femur locking compression plate (PF-LCP) is a new concept in the treatment of hip fractures. When releasing new implants onto the market, biomechanical studies are conducted to evaluate performance of the implant. We investigated the relation between biomechanical and clinical studies on PF-LCP. Methods — A systematic literature search of relevant biomechanical and clinical studies was conducted in PubMed on December 1, 2015. 7 biomechanical studies and 15 clinical studies were included. Results — Even though the biomechanical studies showed equivalent or higher failure loads for femoral neck fracture, the clinical results were far worse, with a 37% complication rate. There were no biomechanical studies on pertrochanteric fractures. Biomechanical studies on subtrochanteric fractures showed that PF-LCP had a lower failure load than with proximal femoral nail, but higher than with angled blade plate. 4 clinical studies had complication rates less than 8% and 9 studies had complication rates between 15% and 53%. Interpretation — There was no clear relation between biomechanical and clinical studies. Biomechanical studies are generally inherently different from clinical studies, as they examine the best possible theoretical use of the implant without considering the long-term outcome in a clinical setting. Properly designed clinical studies are mandatory when introducing new implants, and they cannot be replaced by biomechanical studies.

U2 - 10.1080/17453674.2017.1304207

DO - 10.1080/17453674.2017.1304207

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 28287002

AN - SCOPUS:85015103427

VL - 88

SP - 427

EP - 433

JO - Acta Orthopaedica

JF - Acta Orthopaedica

SN - 1745-3674

IS - 4

ER -