Biomechanical testing of a new plate system for the distal humerus compared to two well-established implants

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Christine Voigt (1) (3)
  Christina Rank (2)
  Klaus Waizner (3)
  Robert Wendlandt (3)
  Andreas Unger (2)
  Arndt P Schulz (2) (3)
  Christian Jürgens (2)
  Felix Renken (2)
  
• 刊名：International Orthopaedics
• 出版年：2013
• 出版时间：April 2013
• 年：2013
• 卷：37
• 期：4
• 页码：667-672
• 全文大小：208KB
• 参考文献：1. Palvanen M, Kannus P, Parkkari J, Pitk?j?rvi T, Pasanen M, Vuori I, J?rvinen M (2000) The injury mechanisms of osteoporotic upper extremity fractures among older adults: a controlled study of 287 consecutive patients and their 108 controls. Osteoporos Int 11:822-31 CrossRef
  2. Popovic D, King GJW (2012) Fragility fractures of the distal humerus: what is the optimal treatment? J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(1):16-2 CrossRef
  3. Jupiter JB, Morrey BF (1993) Fractures of the distal humerus in the adult. In: Morrey BF (ed) The elbow and its disorders, 2nd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, London, pp 328-66
  4. Robinson CM, Hill RMF, Jacobs N, Dall G, Court-Brown CM (2003) Adult distal humeral metaphyseal fractures: epidemiology and results of treatment. J Orthop Trauma 17:38-7 CrossRef
  5. Srinivasan K, Agarwal M, Matthews SJ, Giannoudis PV (2005) Fractures of the distal humerus in the elderly: is internal fixation the treatment of choice? Clin Orthop Relat Res 434:222-30 CrossRef
  6. Bonnaire F, Bula P (2010) Distale humeral fractures. Trauma Berufskrankh 12(2 Suppl):96-03 CrossRef
  7. Korner J, Diederichs G, Arzdorf M, Lill H, Josten C, Schneider E, Linke B (2004) A biomechanical evaluation of methods of distal humerus fracture fixation using locking compression plates versus conventional reconstruction plates. J Orthop Trauma 18:286-93 CrossRef
  8. Windolf M, Maza ER, Gueorguiev B, Braunstein V, Schwieger K (2010) Treatment of distal humeral fractures using conventional implants. Biomechanical evaluation of a new implant configuration. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:172 CrossRef
  9. Kollias CM, Darcy SP, Reed JG, Rosvold JM, Shrive NG, Hildebrand KA (2010) Distal humerus internal fixation: a biomechanical comparison of 90° and parallel constructs. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ): 39(9):440-44
  10. Penzkofer R, Hungerer S, Wipf F, von Oldenburg G, Augat P (2010) Anatomical plate configuration affects mechanical performance in distal humerus fractures. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 25(10):972-78 CrossRef
  11. Schwartz A, Oka R, Odell T, Mahar A (2006) Biomechanical comparison of two different periarticular plating systems for stabilization of complex distal humerus fractures. Clin Biomech 21:950-55 CrossRef
  12. Shin SJ, Sohn HS, Do NH (2010) A clinical comparison of two different double plating methods for intraarticular distal humerus fractures. J Should Elb Surg 19:2- CrossRef
  13. Frattini M, Soncini G, Corradi M, Panno B, Tocco S, Pogliacomi F (2011) Mid-term results of complex distal humeral fractures. Musculoskelet Surg 95(3):205-13 CrossRef
  14. Athwal GS, Hoxie SC, Rispoli DM, Steinmann SP (2009) Precontoured parallel plate fixation of AO/OTA type C distal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma 23:575-80 CrossRef
  15. Dunlap JT, Chong AC, Lucas GL, Cooke FW (2008) Structural properties of a novel design of composite analogue humeri models. Ann Biomed Eng 36(11):1922-926 CrossRef
  16. Schuster I (2005) Development of a method to test osteosyntheses in intraarticular distal humeral fractures with a metaphyseal comminution zone in decreased bone mineral density. Dissertation, University of Freiburg, Germany
  17. Morrey BF (1985) The elbow and its disorders. WB Saunders Co, Philadelphia, PA
  18. Claes L, Wolf S, Augat P (2000) Mechanical modification of callus healing. Chirurg 71(9):989-94 CrossRef
  19. Schuster I, Korner J, Arzdorf M, Schwieger K, Diederichs G, Linke B (2008) Mechanical comparison in cadaver specimens of three different 90-degree double-plate osteosyntheses for simulated C2-type distal humerus fractures with varying bone densities. J Orthop Trauma 22(2):113-20 CrossRef
  20. Siebenlist S, St?ckle U, Lucke M (2009) Problems of osteoporotic fractures of the elbow. Obere Extremit?t 4:160-67 CrossRef
  21. Nicol A, Berme N, Paul J (1977) A biomechanical analysis of elbow joint function. Joint replacement in the upper limb. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London, pp 45-1
  22. Nordin M (2001) Biomechanics of tendons and ligaments. In: Nordin M, Lorenz T (eds) Basic biomechanics of the musculoskeletal system, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 350-56
  23. Rübberdt A, Surke C, Fuchs T, Frerichmann U, Matuszewski L, Vieth V, Raschke MJ (2008) Preformed plate-fixation system for type AO 13C3 distal humerus fractures: clinical experiences and treatment results taking access into account. Unfallchirurg 111(5): 308-22 [Article in German] CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Christine Voigt (1) (3)
  Christina Rank (2)
  Klaus Waizner (3)
  Robert Wendlandt (3)
  Andreas Unger (2)
  Arndt P Schulz (2) (3)
  Christian Jürgens (2)
  Felix Renken (2)
  
  1. Department of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, Friederikenstift Hospital Hannover, Humboldtstra?e 5, 30169, Hannover, Germany
  3. Laboratory for Biomechanics, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany
  2. Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, University Medical-Center Schleswig Holstein, Lübeck, Germany
  
• ISSN：1432-5195

文摘

Purpose A biomechanical study was performed to test the hypothesis that a new anatomically preformed, thinner, soft-tissue protecting plate system for distal humeral fractures (Tifix?-hybridplate [HP]) would show comparable results in the quasi-static and dynamic testings compared to two conventional implants: The 3.5-mm reconstruction plate (RP) providing primary stability with normal bone mineral density (BMD), and a multidirectional locking plate (Tifix?-plate [P]) which can be used with poor bone quality. Methods The Tifix?-HP was developed by the working group. The biomechanical testing was performed on a C2-fracture-model in 24 synthetic humeri. Three groups, each with eight bone-implant-constructs, were analysed in quasi-static and dynamic tests. Results The quasi-static measurements showed that under extension loading both locking plates (Tifix?-P, Tifix?-HP) were significantly stiffer than the reconstruction plate, and that the Tifix?-HP had a significantly lower stiffness than the two other implants under flexion loading. In the dynamic tests the Tifix?-P allowed significantly less fracture motion compared to the Tifix?-HP and the reconstruction plate. In an osteopaenic bone model locking plates failed only under much higher dynamic force than the reconstruction plate. The reconstruction plate and the Tifix?-P always failed through screw loosening, whereas the newly developed Tifix?-HP showed screw loosening in only one third of cases. Conclusion The hypothesis that the newly designed plate system showed comparable results in the quasi-static and dynamic tests compared to the conventional implants with a significantly lower implant volume and thickness was confirmed.