| Literature DB >> 34819107 |
Gang Liu1,2,3,4, Xiaoguang Guo1,2,3,4, Qian Zhao5, Bo Qin1,2,3,4, Junjie Lu6, Dingsu Bao1,2,3,4, Shijie Fu7,8,9,10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Split fractures of the humeral greater tuberosity (HGT) are common injuries. Although there are numerous surgical treatments for these fractures, no classification system combining clinical and biomechanical characteristics has been presented to guide the choice of fixation method.Entities:
Keywords: Biomechanical classification; Humeral greater tuberosity; Rotator cuff tear; Split fracture; Surgical technique
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34819107 PMCID: PMC8614056 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02839-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1Morphological classification of fractures of the HGT. Type I avulsion fractures exhibit small fragments of bone with a horizontal fracture line. Type II split fractures exhibit one large fragment with a vertical fracture line. Type III depressed fractures exhibit an inferiorly displaced fragment
Fig. 2Clinical imaging findings of fractures of the humeral greater tuberosity. A X-ray image of a single-fragment fracture. B X-ray image of a multi-fragment fracture. C Computed tomography scan of a single-fragment fracture. D Computed tomography scan of a multi-fragment fracture. E Magnetic resonance image of a single-fragment fracture. F Magnetic resonance image of a single-fragment fracture with rotator cuff tear. G Magnetic resonance image of a multi-fragment fracture without rotator cuff tear. H Magnetic resonance image of a multi-fragment fracture with rotator cuff tear
Fig. 3Sketch models of the four types of fracture of the humeral greater tuberosity. A Type I, single-fragment fracture. B Type II, single-fragment fracture with medium size full-thickness rotator cuff tear (FT-RCT). C Type III, multi-fragment fracture. D Type IV, multi-fragment fracture with medium size FT-RCT
Fig. 4Diagram showing the preparation of specimen models. A The whole humerus and rotator cuff tendon were retained. B A standardised greater tuberosity fracture. C The single-fragment fracture was cut into multiple fragments. D Comparison of the PHILOS and shortened PHILOS plates. E Standardised fixation of single-fragment fractures. F Both sides of the supraspinatus were sutured using Ethicon 5# Johnson suture material. G A medium size, full-thickness rotator cuff tear was created. H Fixation of multi-fragment fractures
Fig. 5Diagrams of the load and load-to-failure tests. A Group A, single-fragment fracture. B Group B, single-fragment fracture with medium size full-thickness rotator cuff tear (FT-RCT). C Group C, multi-fragment fracture. D Group D, multi-fragment fracture with medium size FT-RCT
Basic physical properties of the cadaver specimens were as follows
| Physical properties | Group A | Group B | Group C | Group D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMD, g/cm2 | 0.52 ± 0.03 | 0.52 ± 0.05 | 0.51 ± 0.06 | 0.52 ± 0.05 | 0.26 |
| SS thickness (mm) | 5.25 ± 0.42 | 5.37 ± 0.57 | 5.01 ± 0.67 | 5.34 ± 0.37 | 0.50 |
| SS width (mm) | 24.23 ± 2.53 | 24.15 ± 2.52 | 23.73 ± 2.37 | 24.08 ± 2.26 | 0.92 |
| Footprint length (mm) | 12.36 ± 1.88 | 12.26 ± 1.41 | 12.42 ± 1.19 | 11.96 ± 1.51 | 0.65 |
| Footprint width (mm) | 23.01 ± 1.52 | 22.59 ± 1.78 | 22.35 ± 1.49 | 23.43 ± 2.01 | 0.54 |
Group A (n) = B = C = D = 6, BMD bone mineral density, SS supraspinatus
The findings of 3 mm, 5 mm and 10 mm HGT displacements
| Displacement (mm) | Group A (N) | Group B (N) | Group C (N) | Group D (N) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 33.50 ± 3.39bc | 31.17 ± 6.24 | 27.17 ± 5.34 | 27.00 ± 3.74 |
| 5 | 80.17 ± 10.01bc | 66.83 ± 17.80bc | 45.00 ± 5.83 | 41.50 ± 8.19 |
| 10 | 194.00 ± 29.23abc | 157.00 ± 29.97bc | 109.00 ± 17.64c | 79.67 ± 15.50 |
Each group contained six specimens, a: versus Group B, b: versus Group C, c: versus Group D (P < 0.05)
Fig. 6Results of the load-to-failure test. Notes: a versus Group B; b versus Group C; c versus Group D (P < 0.05)