{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012785388127853882, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005479452054794521, 'mean_word_length': 5.335260115606936, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Internal fixation of proximal femur fractures: a biomechanical comparison of the Gamma Locking Nail and the Omega Compression Hip Screw.

The fracture fixation capability of the Gamma Locking Nail was compared with the Omega Compression Hip Screw using cadaver femurs with simulated intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures. Loading of the femurs was done on an Instron machine. Fracture fragment motion was recorded at 100-lb loading increments using standard roentgenograms. Both forms of hardware exhibited sufficient structural integrity to carry loads up to 600 lbs. Fracture motion was generally greater with the Gamma Locking Nail, which appeared to suspend the proximal fragments above a pivot point defined by the distal locking screws. Compression of the fracture site under loading did not occur with the Gamma Locking Nail. The potential for iatrogenic fracture generation appeared greater with the Gamma Locking Nail. Additionally, no clear mechanical advantage was documented in the fracture patterns tested. A limited discretionary use of the Gamma Locking Nail is advised.