Biomechanical Study of Different Plate Configurations for Distal Humerus Osteosynthesis

Overview

Journal Med Biol Eng Comput

Publisher Springer

Specialties Biomedical Engineering
Medical Informatics

Date 2015 Feb 10

PMID 25663513

Citations 11

Authors

M Bogataj

F Kosel

R Norris

M Krkovic

M Brojan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Fractures of the distal humerus are most commonly fixed by open reduction and internal fixation, using plates and screws, either in a locking or in a non-locking construct. Three different plating systems are commonly used in practice. The most important differences between them are in plate orientation, which affects both the rigidity of the osteosynthesis and invasiveness of the surgical procedure. Unfortunately, there is no common agreement between surgeons about which plate configuration brings the best clinical outcome. In this study, we investigate the theoretical rigidity of plate osteosyntheses considering two types of AO/ASIF configurations (90° angle between plates), Mayo clinic (Acumed) configuration (180° between plates) and dorsal fixation of both plates. We also compared the results for cases with and without contact between the bone fragments. In the case of no bone contact, the Mayo clinic plate configuration is found to be the most rigid, followed by both AO/ASIF plate configurations, and the least rigid system is the Korosec plate configuration. On the other hand, no significant differences between all types of fixation configurations are found in cases with contact in-between the bone fragments. Our findings show that this contact is very important and can compensate for the lack of load carrying capacity of the implants. This could therefore incite other implant fixation solutions, leading to less invasive surgical procedures and consequently improved clinical outcome.

Citing Articles

Biomechanical Design Optimization of Distal Humerus Fracture Plates: A Review.

Zdero R, Brzozowski P, Schemitsch E Biomed Res Int. 2024; 2024:6015794.

PMID: 38966093 PMC: 11223906. DOI: 10.1155/2024/6015794.

Cadaveric biomechanical assessment of different configurations for a novel pin and plate fixation method in distal humerus fractures.

Same K, Hakiminejad A, Nourani A, Nabian M, Foruozesh M, Kamrani R Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):242.

PMID: 38168602 PMC: 10762163. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-50976-7.

Adjunctive intraosseous wiring fixation technique for the comminuted distal humeral fractures.

Tsutsui S, Okano I, Kuroda T, Kawasaki K, Inagaki K JSES Rev Rep Tech. 2023; 3(4):583-591.

PMID: 37928982 PMC: 10624999. DOI: 10.1016/j.xrrt.2023.05.009.

Biomechanical analysis of different osteosynthesis configurations in the pin and plate fixation method for distal humerus fractures.

Hakiminejad A, Nourani A, Ghias N, Mahmoudi A, Same K, Kamrani R BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023; 24(1):579.

PMID: 37460939 PMC: 10351186. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06709-y.

Clinical comparison of double-plate fixation by the perpendicular plate method versus parallel plate method for distal humeral fracture: a multicenter (TRON group) study.

Yokoyama H, Takegami Y, Tokutake K, Oshika Y, Iwase K, Tanaka K Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2022; 33(6):2427-2433.

PMID: 36527504 DOI: 10.1007/s00590-022-03462-1.

References

MacLeod A, Pankaj P, Simpson A . Does screw-bone interface modelling matter in finite element analyses?. J Biomech. 2012; 45(9):1712-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.04.008. View

Cheng H, Lin C, Lin Y, Chen A . Biomechanical evaluation of the modified double-plating fixation for the distal radius fracture. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2007; 22(5):510-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.12.010. View

Shin S, Sohn H, Do N . A clinical comparison of two different double plating methods for intraarticular distal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 19(1):2-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.05.003. View

McGough R, Debski R, Taskiran E, Fu F, Woo S . Mechanical properties of the long head of the biceps tendon. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1996; 3(4):226-9. DOI: 10.1007/BF01466622. View

Korner J, Diederichs G, Arzdorf M, Lill H, Josten C, Schneider E . A biomechanical evaluation of methods of distal humerus fracture fixation using locking compression plates versus conventional reconstruction plates. J Orthop Trauma. 2004; 18(5):286-93. DOI: 10.1097/00005131-200405000-00004. View

Krkovic M, Bosnjak R . Subperiosteal elevation of the ulnar nerve-Anatomical considerations and preliminary results. Injury. 2008; 39(7):761-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2008.01.016. View

Wieding J, Souffrant R, Fritsche A, Mittelmeier W, Bader R . Finite element analysis of osteosynthesis screw fixation in the bone stock: an appropriate method for automatic screw modelling. PLoS One. 2012; 7(3):e33776. PMC: 3314684. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033776. View

Vandenbulcke F, Rahmoun J, Naceur H, Morvan H, Drazetic P, Fontaine C . Multiscale modelling of the mechanical behaviour of human humerus under impact. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2013; 16 Suppl 1:211-3. DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2013.815954. View

ODriscoll S . Optimizing stability in distal humeral fracture fixation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005; 14(1 Suppl S):186S-194S. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.033. View

10.

Carpenter J, Wening J, Mell A, Langenderfer J, Kuhn J, Hughes R . Changes in the long head of the biceps tendon in rotator cuff tear shoulders. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2004; 20(2):162-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.09.009. View

11.

Bolsterlee B, Veeger D, Chadwick E . Clinical applications of musculoskeletal modelling for the shoulder and upper limb. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2013; 51(9):953-63. DOI: 10.1007/s11517-013-1099-5. View

12.

Lovald S, Wagner J, Baack B . Biomechanical optimization of bone plates used in rigid fixation of mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 67(5):973-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2008.12.032. View

13.

Bottlang M, Doornink J, Lujan T, Fitzpatrick D, Marsh J, Augat P . Effects of construct stiffness on healing of fractures stabilized with locking plates. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92 Suppl 2:12-22. PMC: 2995582. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00780. View

14.

Penzkofer R, Hungerer S, Wipf F, von Oldenburg G, Augat P . Anatomical plate configuration affects mechanical performance in distal humerus fractures. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2010; 25(10):972-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.07.005. View

15.

Dunham C, Takaki S, Johnson J, Dunning C . Mechanical properties of cancellous bone of the distal humerus. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2005; 20(8):834-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.05.014. View

16.

Schwartz A, Oka R, Odell T, Mahar A . Biomechanical comparison of two different periarticular plating systems for stabilization of complex distal humerus fractures. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2006; 21(9):950-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.04.018. View

17.

Zalavras C, Vercillo M, Jun B, Otarodifard K, Itamura J, Lee T . Biomechanical evaluation of parallel versus orthogonal plate fixation of intra-articular distal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010; 20(1):12-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.005. View

18.

Tai C, Chen W, Chen H, Lin C, Lee M . Biomechanical optimization of different fixation modes for a proximal femoral L-osteotomy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009; 10:112. PMC: 2749807. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-10-112. View

19.

Gefen A . Computational simulations of stress shielding and bone resorption around existing and computer-designed orthopaedic screws. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2002; 40(3):311-22. DOI: 10.1007/BF02344213. View

20.

Korner J, Lill H, Muller L, Rommens P, Schneider E, Linke B . The LCP-concept in the operative treatment of distal humerus fractures--biological, biomechanical and surgical aspects. Injury. 2003; 34 Suppl 2:B20-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2003.09.022. View