BACKGROUND: Several studies have examined the biomechanical stability of smooth wire fixation constructs used to stabilize pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures. An analysis of varying pin size, number, and lateral starting points has not been performed previously. METHODS: Twenty synthetic humeri were sectioned in the midolecranon fossa to simulate a supracondylar humerus fracture. Specimens were all anatomically reduced and pinned with a lateral-entry configuration. There were 2 main groups based on specific lateral-entry starting point (direct lateral vs. capitellar). Within these groups pin size (1.6 vs. 2.0 mm) and number of pins (2 vs. 3) were varied and the specimens biomechanically tested. Each construct was tested in extension, varus, valgus, internal, and external rotation. Data for fragment stiffness (N/mm or N mm/degree) were analyzed with a multivariate analysis of variance and Bonferroni post hoc analysis (P<0.05). RESULTS: The capitellar starting point provided for increased stiffness in internal and external rotation compared with a direct lateral starting point (P<0.05). Two 2.0-mm pins were statistically superior to two 1.6-mm pins in internal and external rotation. There was no significant difference found comparing two versus three 1.6-mm pins. CONCLUSIONS: The best torsional resistances were found in the capitellar starting group along with increased pin diameter. The capitellar starting point enables the surgeon to engage sufficient bone of the distal fragment and maximizes pin separation at the fracture site. In our anatomically reduced fracture model, the addition of a third pin provided no biomechanical advantage. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Consider a capitellar starting point for the more distally placed pin in supracondylar humerus fractures, and if the patient's size allows, a larger pin construct will provide improved stiffness with regard to rotational stresses.
BACKGROUND: Several studies have examined the biomechanical stability of smooth wire fixation constructs used to stabilize pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures. An analysis of varying pin size, number, and lateral starting points has not been performed previously. METHODS: Twenty synthetic humeri were sectioned in the midolecranon fossa to simulate a supracondylar humerus fracture. Specimens were all anatomically reduced and pinned with a lateral-entry configuration. There were 2 main groups based on specific lateral-entry starting point (direct lateral vs. capitellar). Within these groups pin size (1.6 vs. 2.0 mm) and number of pins (2 vs. 3) were varied and the specimens biomechanically tested. Each construct was tested in extension, varus, valgus, internal, and external rotation. Data for fragment stiffness (N/mm or N mm/degree) were analyzed with a multivariate analysis of variance and Bonferroni post hoc analysis (P<0.05). RESULTS: The capitellar starting point provided for increased stiffness in internal and external rotation compared with a direct lateral starting point (P<0.05). Two 2.0-mm pins were statistically superior to two 1.6-mm pins in internal and external rotation. There was no significant difference found comparing two versus three 1.6-mm pins. CONCLUSIONS: The best torsional resistances were found in the capitellar starting group along with increased pin diameter. The capitellar starting point enables the surgeon to engage sufficient bone of the distal fragment and maximizes pin separation at the fracture site. In our anatomically reduced fracture model, the addition of a third pin provided no biomechanical advantage. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Consider a capitellar starting point for the more distally placed pin in supracondylar humerus fractures, and if the patient's size allows, a larger pin construct will provide improved stiffness with regard to rotational stresses.
Authors: Brian M Schurko; Benjamin J Shore; Stephen P Maier; Emily Cidambi; Colyn J Watkins Journal: J Child Orthop Date: 2021-08-20 Impact factor: 1.548
Authors: Alexander M Bitzer; Stephen M Belkoff; Christa L LiBrizzi; Chimelie Chibututu; R Jay Lee Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: I Georgescu; S Gavriliu; A Pârvan; A Martiniuc; E Japie; R Ghiță; I Drăghici; Ş Hamei; I Ţiripa; T El Nayef; D Dan Journal: J Med Life Date: 2013-06-25