INTRODUCTION: Secondary loss of reduction and pseudarthrosis due to unstable fixation methods remain challenging problems of surgical stabilisation of radial head fractures. The purpose of our study was to determine whether the 3.0mm Headless Compression Screw (HCS) provides superior stability to the standard 2.0 mm cortical screw (COS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight pairs of fresh frozen human cadaveric proximal radii were used for this paired comparison. A standardised Mason II-Fracture was created with a fragment size of 1/3 of the radial head's articular surface that was then stabilised either with two 3.0 mm HCS (Synthes) or two 2.0 mm COS (Synthes) according to a randomisation protocol. The specimens were then loaded axially and transversely with 100 N each for 4 cycles. Cyclic loading with 1000 cycles as well as failure load tests were performed. The Wilcoxon test was used to assess statistically significant differences between the two groups. RESULTS: No statistical differences could be detected between the two fixation methods. Under axial loads the COS showed a displacement of 0.32 mm vs. 0.49 mm for the HCS. Under transverse loads the displacement was 0.25 mm for the COS vs. 0.58 mm for the HCS group. After 1000 cycles of axial loading there were still no significant differences. The failure load for the COS group was 291 N and 282 N for the HCS group. CONCLUSION: No significant differences concerning the stability achieved by 3.0 mm HCS and the 2.0 mm COS could be detected in the experimental setup presented. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION: Secondary loss of reduction and pseudarthrosis due to unstable fixation methods remain challenging problems of surgical stabilisation of radial head fractures. The purpose of our study was to determine whether the 3.0mm Headless Compression Screw (HCS) provides superior stability to the standard 2.0 mm cortical screw (COS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight pairs of fresh frozen human cadaveric proximal radii were used for this paired comparison. A standardised Mason II-Fracture was created with a fragment size of 1/3 of the radial head's articular surface that was then stabilised either with two 3.0 mm HCS (Synthes) or two 2.0 mm COS (Synthes) according to a randomisation protocol. The specimens were then loaded axially and transversely with 100 N each for 4 cycles. Cyclic loading with 1000 cycles as well as failure load tests were performed. The Wilcoxon test was used to assess statistically significant differences between the two groups. RESULTS: No statistical differences could be detected between the two fixation methods. Under axial loads the COS showed a displacement of 0.32 mm vs. 0.49 mm for the HCS. Under transverse loads the displacement was 0.25 mm for the COS vs. 0.58 mm for the HCS group. After 1000 cycles of axial loading there were still no significant differences. The failure load for the COS group was 291 N and 282 N for the HCS group. CONCLUSION: No significant differences concerning the stability achieved by 3.0 mm HCS and the 2.0 mm COS could be detected in the experimental setup presented. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.