Background: Recently, intramedullary headless screw (IMHS) has shown promise as an alternative to dorsal plate fixation of metacarpal fractures. The purpose of this study was to assess the biomechanical performance of IMHS versus plating. We hypothesized that IMHS fixation provides inferior stability to plating. Methods: Metacarpal fracture model with 3-mm of volar gapping in forty-four human cadaveric metacarpals was created. The specimens were divided into 5 groups: Group 1, 1.5-mm non-locking plate; Group 2, 1.5-mm locking plate; Group 3, 2.0-mm non-locking plate; Group 4, 2.0-mm locking plate; and Group 5, 2.4-mm short cannulated IMHS. A 4-point bending model was used to assess load-to failure (LTF) and stiffness. Results: Mean LTF was 364 ± 130 N for 1.5-mm non-locking plates, 218 ± 94 N for 1.5-mm locking plates, 421 ± 86 N for 2.0-mm non-locking plates, 351 ± 71 N for 2.0-mm locking plates, and 75 ± 20 N for IMHS. Mean stiffness was 91 ± 12 N/mm for 1.5-mm non-locking plates, 110 ± 77 N/mm for 1.5-mm locking plates, 94 ± 20 N/mm for 2.0-mm non-locking plates, 135 ± 16 N/mm for 2.0-mm locking plates, and 55 ± 15 N/mm for IMHS. IMHS demonstrated significantly lower LTF and stiffness than plates. Conclusions: IMHS fixation of unstable metacarpal shaft fractures offers less stability compared to plating when loaded in bending. The LTF and stiffness of IMHS versus plating of metacarpal shaft fractures has not been previously quantified. Our results reveal that IMHS fixation is less favorable biomechanically and should be carefully chosen in regards to fracture stability.
Background: Recently, intramedullary headless screw (IMHS) has shown promise as an alternative to dorsal plate fixation of metacarpal fractures. The purpose of this study was to assess the biomechanical performance of IMHS versus plating. We hypothesized that IMHS fixation provides inferior stability to plating. Methods: Metacarpal fracture model with 3-mm of volar gapping in forty-four human cadaveric metacarpals was created. The specimens were divided into 5 groups: Group 1, 1.5-mm non-locking plate; Group 2, 1.5-mm locking plate; Group 3, 2.0-mm non-locking plate; Group 4, 2.0-mm locking plate; and Group 5, 2.4-mm short cannulated IMHS. A 4-point bending model was used to assess load-to failure (LTF) and stiffness. Results: Mean LTF was 364 ± 130 N for 1.5-mm non-locking plates, 218 ± 94 N for 1.5-mm locking plates, 421 ± 86 N for 2.0-mm non-locking plates, 351 ± 71 N for 2.0-mm locking plates, and 75 ± 20 N for IMHS. Mean stiffness was 91 ± 12 N/mm for 1.5-mm non-locking plates, 110 ± 77 N/mm for 1.5-mm locking plates, 94 ± 20 N/mm for 2.0-mm non-locking plates, 135 ± 16 N/mm for 2.0-mm locking plates, and 55 ± 15 N/mm for IMHS. IMHS demonstrated significantly lower LTF and stiffness than plates. Conclusions: IMHS fixation of unstable metacarpal shaft fractures offers less stability compared to plating when loaded in bending. The LTF and stiffness of IMHS versus plating of metacarpal shaft fractures has not been previously quantified. Our results reveal that IMHS fixation is less favorable biomechanically and should be carefully chosen in regards to fracture stability.
Authors: David E Ruchelsman; Sameer Puri; Natanya Feinberg-Zadek; Matthew I Leibman; Mark R Belsky Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2014-09-18 Impact factor: 2.230