Mark Heyland

Dr. Mark Heyland

Berlin Institute of Health at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Julius Wolff Institute
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

14Years (2013-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications

1 October 2015 in Injury
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Mark HeylandMark Heyland
Mark Heyland
GDGeorg N. Duda
Georg N. Duda
NHNorbert P. Haas
Norbert P. Haas
ATAdam Trepczynski
Adam Trepczynski
SDStefan Döbele
Stefan Döbele
Sven MaerdianSven Maerdian
Sven Maerdian

1 October 2015 in Clinical Biomechanics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Sven MaerdianSven Maerdian
Sven Maerdian
WSWerner Schmoelz
Werner Schmoelz
KSKlaus-Dieter Schaser
Klaus-Dieter Schaser
GDGeorg Duda
Georg Duda
Mark HeylandMark Heyland
Mark Heyland

1 March 2019 in Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
CRCarsten Rendenbach
Carsten Rendenbach
CSClaudius Steffen
Claudius Steffen
KSKay Sellenschloh
Kay Sellenschloh
Mark HeylandMark Heyland
Mark Heyland
MMMichael M. Morlock
Michael M. Morlock
GHGerd Huber
Gerd Huber

24 January 2019 in Scientific Reports
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Mark HeylandMark Heyland
Mark Heyland
Sara ChecaSara Checa
Sara Checa
DKDaniel Kendoff
Daniel Kendoff
GDGeorg N. Duda
Georg N. Duda
Aseptic loosening remains a major problem for uncemented femoral components in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Ideally, bone adaptation after THA manifests minimally and local bone density reduction is widely avoided. Different design features may help to approximate initial, post-THA bone strain to levels pre-THA. Strain-shielding effects of different SP-CL stem design features are systematically analyzed and compared to CLS Spotorno and CORAIL using finite element models and physiological musculoskeletal loading conditions. All designs show substantial proximal strain-shielding: 50% reduced medial surface strain, 40–50% reduction at lateral surface, >120 µm/m root mean square error (RMSE) compared to intact bone in Gruen zone 1 and >60 µm/m RMSE in Gruen zones 2, 6, and 7. Geometrical changes (ribs, grooves, cross sections, stem length, anatomic curvature) have a considerable effect on strain-shielding; up to 20%. Combinations of reduced stem stiffness with larger proximal contact area (anatomically curved, grooves) lead to less strain-shielding compared to clinically established implant designs. We found that only the combination of a structurally flexible stem with anatomical curvature and grooves improves strain-shielding compared to other designs. The clinical implications in vivo of this initial strain-shielding difference are currently under evaluation in an ongoing clinical analysis.

13 January 2022 in European Journal of Medical Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Henrik C. BäckerHenrik C. Bäcker
Henrik C. Bäcker
Mark HeylandMark Heyland
Mark Heyland
CWChia H. Wu
Chia H. Wu
CPCarsten Perka
Carsten Perka
USUlrich Stöckle
Ulrich Stöckle
KBKarl Braun
Karl Braun
Introduction: Intramedullary (IM) fixation is the dominant treatment for pertrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures. In comparison to plate osteosynthesis (PO), IM fixation offers greater biomechanical stability and reduced non-union rates. Due to the minimally invasive nature, IM fixations are less prone to approach-associated complications, such as soft-tissue damage, bleeding or postoperative infection, but they are more prone to fat embolism. A rare but serious complication, however, is implant failure. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify possible risk factors for intramedullary fixation (IMF) and plate osteosynthesis (PO) failure.Materials and methods: We searched our trauma surgery database for implant failure, intramedullary and plate osteosynthesis, after proximal—pertrochanteric, subtrochanteric—or femoral shaft fractures between 2011 and 2019. Implant failures in both the IMF and PO groups were included. Demographic data, fracture type, quality of reduction, duration between initial implantation and nail or plate failure, the use of cerclages, intraoperative microbiological samples, sonication, and, if available, histology were collected.Results: A total of 24 femoral implant failures were identified: 11 IMFs and 13 POs. The average age of patients in the IM group was 68.2 ± 13.5 years and in the PO group was 65.6 ± 15.0 years, with men being affected in 63.6% and 39.5% of cases, respectively. A proximal femoral nail (PFN) anti-rotation was used in 7 patients, a PFN in one and a gamma nail in two patients. A total of 6 patients required cerclage wires for additional stability. A combined plate and intramedullary fixation was chosen in one patient. Initially, all intramedullary nails were statically locked. Failures were observed 34.1 weeks after the initial surgery on average. Risk factors for implant failure included the application of cerclage wires at the level of the fracture (n = 5, 21%), infection (n = 2, 8%), and the use of an additional sliding screw alongside the femoral neck screw (n = 3, 13%). In all patients, non-union was diagnosed radiographically and clinically after 6 months (n = 24, 100%). In the event of PO failure, the placement of screws within all screw holes, and interprosthetic fixation were recognised as the major causes of failure.Conclusion: Intramedullary or plate osteosynthesis remain safe and reliable procedures in the treatment of proximal femoral fractures (pertrochanteric, subtrochanteric and femoral shaft fractures). Nevertheless, the surgeon needs to be aware of several implant-related limitations causing implant breakage. These may include the application of tension band wiring which can lead to a too rigid fixation, or placement of cerclage wires at the fracture site.