BACKGROUND: In the treatment of humeral fractures, reamed nailing and compression have been reported to give higher stability. In this cadaver study, we compared the Unreamed Humeral Nail (UHN) with the (reamed) Telescopic Locking Nail (TLN) to find out whether any differences exist concerning bending and rotational stability, both with and without compression. METHODS: Nails were tested in a paired set-up with 8 pairs of fresh frozen cadaveric humeri. The nail-bone constructs were submitted to axial distraction to test compression, four-point bending and torsion. After creating a bone defect simulating an unstable fracture, bending and torsional tests were run again RESULTS: After cyclic loading, distraction under compression with the TLN was significantly less than with the UHN: 0.10 (SD 0.06) vs. 0.31 (SD 0.18) mm (difference = -67%, 95% CI = -84% to -37%; p = 0.01). In bending, the constructs with TLN under compression were stiffer than those with the UHN: 0.96 (SD 0.25) vs. 0.80 (SD 0.25) kN/mm (difference = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.25; p = 0.01). In torsion and with a bone defect, no significant differences were found. INTERPRETATION: Both nails are capable of resisting physiological forces acting on the humerus. The constructs with the TLN under compression are more stable in bending. Compression with an axial set screw is the more stable option.
BACKGROUND: In the treatment of humeral fractures, reamed nailing and compression have been reported to give higher stability. In this cadaver study, we compared the Unreamed Humeral Nail (UHN) with the (reamed) Telescopic Locking Nail (TLN) to find out whether any differences exist concerning bending and rotational stability, both with and without compression. METHODS: Nails were tested in a paired set-up with 8 pairs of fresh frozen cadaveric humeri. The nail-bone constructs were submitted to axial distraction to test compression, four-point bending and torsion. After creating a bone defect simulating an unstable fracture, bending and torsional tests were run again RESULTS: After cyclic loading, distraction under compression with the TLN was significantly less than with the UHN: 0.10 (SD 0.06) vs. 0.31 (SD 0.18) mm (difference = -67%, 95% CI = -84% to -37%; p = 0.01). In bending, the constructs with TLN under compression were stiffer than those with the UHN: 0.96 (SD 0.25) vs. 0.80 (SD 0.25) kN/mm (difference = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.25; p = 0.01). In torsion and with a bone defect, no significant differences were found. INTERPRETATION: Both nails are capable of resisting physiological forces acting on the humerus. The constructs with the TLN under compression are more stable in bending. Compression with an axial set screw is the more stable option.