Literature DB >> 21464739

Comparison of olecranon plate fixation in osteoporotic bone: do current technologies and designs make a difference?

Scott G Edwards1, Benjamin D Martin, Rose H Fu, Joseph M Gill, Mani K Nezhad, Jeffrey A Orr, Allen M Ferrucci, James M Love, Richard Booth, Andrea Singer, Adam H Hsieh.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to determine if recent innovations in olecranon plates have any advantages in stabilizing osteoporotic olecranon fractures.
METHODS: Five olecranon plates (Acumed, Synthes-SS, Synthes-Ti, US Implants/ITS, and Zimmer) were implanted to stabilize a simulated comminuted fracture pattern in 30 osteoporotic cadaveric elbows. Specimens were randomized by bone mineral density per dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan. Three-dimensional displacement analysis was conducted to assess fragment motion through physiological cyclic arcs of motion and failure loading, which was statistically compared using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference post hoc comparisons with a critical significance level of α = 0.05.
RESULTS: Bone mineral density ranged from 0.546 g/cm to 0.878 g/cm with an average of 0.666 g/cm. All implants limited displacement of the fragments to less than 3 mm until sudden, catastrophic failure as the bone of the proximal fragment pulled away from the implant. The maximum load sustained by all osteoporotic specimens ranged from 1.6 kg to 6.6 kg with an average of 4.4 kg. There was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of cycles survived and maximum loads sustained.
CONCLUSIONS: Cyclic physiological loading of osteoporotic olecranon fracture fixation resulted in sudden, catastrophic failure of the bone-implant interface rather than in gradual implant loosening. Recent plate innovations such as locking plates and different screw designs and positions appear to offer no advantages in stabilizing osteoporotic olecranon fractures. Surgeons may be reassured that the current olecranon plates will probably adequately stabilize osteoporotic fractures for early motion in the early postoperative period, but not for heavy activities such as those that involve over 4 kg of resistance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21464739     DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181f22465

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0890-5339            Impact factor:   2.512


  6 in total

1.  Biomechanical Evaluation of Standard Versus Extended Proximal Fixation Olecranon Plates for Fixation of Olecranon Fractures.

Authors:  Allison L Boden; Charles A Daly; Poonam P Dalwadi; Stephanie A Boden; William C Hutton; Raghuveer C Muppavarapu; Michael B Gottschalk
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2018-01-10

2.  Case Report: J-Shaped External Fixator for Treatment of Mayo Type II Olecranon Fractures - A Novel Surgical Technique and Report of Clinical Applications.

Authors:  Yue Tian; Xin Ge; Jiyang Zou; Fenglei Song; John Chun Tien Chui Wan Cheong; Changqing Ge; Weiguo Zhang; Jie Li; Kang Tian
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-06-15

3.  Construct Choice for the Treatment of Displaced, Comminuted Olecranon Fractures: are Locked Plates Cost Effective?

Authors:  Edward M DelSole; Kenneth A Egol; Nirmal C Tejwani
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2016

4.  Outcome after olecranon fracture repair: Does construct type matter?

Authors:  Edward M DelSole; Christian A Pean; Nirmal C Tejwani; Kenneth A Egol
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2015-11-16

5.  Locking-plate osteosynthesis versus intramedullary nailing for fixation of olecranon fractures: a biomechanical study.

Authors:  Tobias E Nowak; Klaus J Burkhart; Torsten Andres; Sven O Dietz; Daniela Klitscher; Lars P Mueller; Pol M Rommens
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Low-profile double plating versus dorsal LCP in stabilization of the olecranon fractures.

Authors:  Stefanie Hoelscher-Doht; A-M Kladny; M M Paul; L Eden; M Buesse; R H Meffert
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-05-16       Impact factor: 3.067

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.