Literature DB >> 11859248

Biomechanical analysis of humeral diaphyseal segmental defect fixation.

Jon C Henry1, Timothy A Damron, Marsha M Weiner, Michael E Higgins, Fred W Werner, Franklin H Sim.   

Abstract

With disseminated malignancies, segmental defects of the humeral diaphysis may occur from surgical resection or as a complication of failed prior internal fixation. This study directly compared the biomechanical properties of a second generation titanium modular intercalary humeral spacer (segmental defect replacement prosthesis) with those of a modern locked humeral nail combined with methylmethacrylate (intramedullary nail) or with an intercalary allograft spacer (allograft nail composite) for fixation of segmental defects of the humeral diaphysis. Eighteen matched pairs (36 specimens) of fresh-frozen humeri were prepared in a standard fashion to create a 5-cm middiaphyseal defect and were divided randomly into three groups of 12 specimens each, using three different reconstructive methods. Specimens were tested in external torsion to failure on a Materials Testing System machine. The segmental defect replacement specimens had statistically greater peak torque (mean, 41.4 N-m) and stiffness (mean, 2.1 N-m/ degrees) than the intramedullary nail specimens (mean peak torque, 23.1 N-m) (mean stiffness, 1.6 N-m/ degrees) or the allograft nail composite specimens (mean peak torque, 12.4 N-m) (mean stiffness, 0.6 N-m/ degrees). The intramedullary nail specimens also had a statistically greater peak torque at failure and stiffness than the allograft nail composite specimens. For segmental defects of the humeral diaphysis, reconstruction with a cemented metallic intercalary spacer provides significantly greater immediate stability than interlocked intramedullary nail fixation supplemented with segmental methylmethacrylate or intercalary allograft reconstruction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11859248     DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200203000-00034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  6 in total

1.  Does the second-generation intercalary humeral spacer improve on the first?

Authors:  Timothy A Damron; Taninnit Leerapun; Ronald R Hugate; Thomas C Shives; Franklin H Sim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-04-18       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Outcomes of Intercalary Prosthetic Reconstruction for Pathological Diaphyseal Femoral Fractures Secondary to Metastatic Tumors.

Authors:  Hong-Chao Huang; Yong-Cheng Hu; Deng-Xing Lun; Jun Miao; Feng Wang; Xiong-Gang Yang; Xin-Long Ma
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2017-06-09       Impact factor: 2.071

3.  Is humeral segmental defect replacement device a stronger construct than locked IM nailing?

Authors:  Robert Heck; Ruxandra Marinescu; Haden Janda; Seth Cooper; Jason Schroeder
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-06-20       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Intercalary prosthetic replacement is a reliable solution for metastatic humeral shaft fractures: retrospective, observational study of a single center series.

Authors:  Zhiqing Zhao; Zhipeng Ye; Taiqiang Yan; Xiaodong Tang; Wei Guo; Rongli Yang
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 2.754

5.  Preliminary results of a new intercalary modular endoprosthesis for the management of diaphyseal bone metastases.

Authors:  Kadir Büyükdoğan; Barlas Göker; Mazhar Tokgözoğlu; Ulukan İnan; Korhan Özkan; Tahsin Sami Çolak; Lercan Aslan; Mehmet Ali Deveci; Mehmet Ayvaz
Journal:  Jt Dis Relat Surg       Date:  2021-11-19

6.  Short-term outcomes of reconstruction subsequent to intercalary resection of femoral diaphyseal metastatic tumor with pathological fracture: Comparison between segmental allograft and intercalary prosthesis.

Authors:  Deng-Xing Lun; Yong-Cheng Hu; Xiong-Gang Yang; Feng Wang; Zhao-Wan Xu
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-01-16       Impact factor: 2.967

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.