Victor Kosmopoulos1, Arvind D Nana. 1. Bone and Joint Research Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Boulevard (CBH 407), Fort Worth, TX, 76107, USA, victor.kosmopoulos@yahoo.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Single large-fragment plate constructs currently are the norm for internal fixation of middiaphyseal humerus fractures. In cases where humeral size is limited, however, dual small-fragment locking plate constructs may serve as an alternative. The mechanical effects of different possible plate configurations around the humeral diaphysis may be important, but to our knowledge, have yet to be investigated. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We used finite element analysis to compare the simulated mechanical performance of five different dual small-fragment locking plate construct configurations for humeral middiaphyseal fracture fixation in terms of (1) stiffness, (2) stress shielding of bone, (3) hardware stresses, and (4) interfragmentary strain. METHODS: Middiaphyseal humeral fracture fixation was simulated using the finite element method. Three 90° and two side-by-side seven-hole and nine-hole small-fragment dual locking plate configurations were tested in compression, torsion, and combined loading. The configurations chosen are based on implantation using either a posterior or anterolateral approach. RESULTS: All three of the 90° configurations were more effective in restoring the intact compressive and torsional stiffness as compared with the side-by-side configurations, resulted in less stress shielding and stressed hardware, and showed interfragmentary strains between 5% to 10% in torsion and combined loading. CONCLUSIONS: The nine-hole plate anterior and seven-hole plate lateral (90° apart) configuration provided the best fixation. Our findings show the mechanical importance of plate placement with relation to loading in dual-plate fracture-fixation constructs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results presented provide novel biomechanical information for the orthopaedic surgeon considering different treatment options for middiaphyseal humeral fractures.
BACKGROUND: Single large-fragment plate constructs currently are the norm for internal fixation of middiaphyseal humerus fractures. In cases where humeral size is limited, however, dual small-fragment locking plate constructs may serve as an alternative. The mechanical effects of different possible plate configurations around the humeral diaphysis may be important, but to our knowledge, have yet to be investigated. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We used finite element analysis to compare the simulated mechanical performance of five different dual small-fragment locking plate construct configurations for humeral middiaphyseal fracture fixation in terms of (1) stiffness, (2) stress shielding of bone, (3) hardware stresses, and (4) interfragmentary strain. METHODS: Middiaphyseal humeral fracture fixation was simulated using the finite element method. Three 90° and two side-by-side seven-hole and nine-hole small-fragment dual locking plate configurations were tested in compression, torsion, and combined loading. The configurations chosen are based on implantation using either a posterior or anterolateral approach. RESULTS: All three of the 90° configurations were more effective in restoring the intact compressive and torsional stiffness as compared with the side-by-side configurations, resulted in less stress shielding and stressed hardware, and showed interfragmentary strains between 5% to 10% in torsion and combined loading. CONCLUSIONS: The nine-hole plate anterior and seven-hole plate lateral (90° apart) configuration provided the best fixation. Our findings show the mechanical importance of plate placement with relation to loading in dual-plate fracture-fixation constructs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results presented provide novel biomechanical information for the orthopaedic surgeon considering different treatment options for middiaphyseal humeral fractures.
Authors: Iván F Rubel; Peter Kloen; Deirdre Campbell; Mark Schwartz; Alan Liew; Elizabeth Myers; David L Helfet Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Daniel C Fitzpatrick; Josef Doornink; Steven M Madey; Michael Bottlang Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2008-12-12 Impact factor: 2.063
Authors: Jan P A M Verbruggen; Werner Sternstein; Jochen Blum; Pol M Rommens; Jouwert W J L Stapert Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: Robert V O'Toole; Romney C Andersen; Oleg Vesnovsky; Melvin Alexander; L D Timmie Topoleski; Jason W Nascone; Marcus F Sciadini; Clifford Turen; W Andrew Eglseder Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Todd O McKinley; Roman M Natoli; James P Fischer; Jeffrey D Rytlewski; David C Scofield; Rashad Usmani; Alexander Kuzma; Kaitlyn S Griffin; Emily Jewell; Paul Childress; Karl D Shively; Tien-Min Gabriel Chu; Jeffrey O Anglen; Melissa A Kacena Journal: Mil Med Date: 2021-11-02 Impact factor: 1.437