Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2017 / Cilt: 51 - Sayı: 1

Biomechanical comparison of orthogonal versus parallel double plating systems in intraarticular distal humerus fractures

Pages
23–28
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This isan open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: In intraarticular distal humerus fractures, internalŞxation with double plates is the goldstandard treatment.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of thisstudy was to compare the biomechanical stability of the parallel and the orthogonal anatomical lockingplating systems in intraarticular distal humerus fractures in artiŞcial humerus models.Methods: Intraarticular distal humerus fracture (AO13-C2) with 5 mm metaphyseal defect was created insixteen artiŞcial humeral models.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This isan open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: In intraarticular distal humerus fractures, internalŞxation with double plates is the goldstandard treatment. However the optimal plate conŞguration is not clear in the literature. The aim of thisstudy was to compare the biomechanical stability of the parallel and the orthogonal anatomical lockingplating systems in intraarticular distal humerus fractures in artiŞcial humerus models.Methods: Intraarticular distal humerus fracture (AO13-C2) with 5 mm metaphyseal defect was created insixteen artiŞcial humeral models. Models were Şxed with either orthogonal or parallel plating systemswith locking screws (Acumed elbow plating systems). Both systems were tested for their stiffness withloads in axial compression, varus, valgus, anterior and posterior bending. Then plastic deformation aftercyclic loading in posterior bending and load to failure in posterior bending were tested. The failuremechanisms of all the samples were observed.Results: Stiffness values in every direction were not signiŞcantly different among the orthogonal and theparallel plating groups. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in plastic deformationvalues (0.31 mme0.29 mm) and load to failure tests in posterior bending (372.4 Ne379.7 N). In theorthogonal plating system most of the failures occurred due to the proximal shaft fracture, whereas inthe parallel plating system failure occurred due to the shift of the most distal screw in proximal fragment.Conclusion: Our study showed that both plating systems had similar biomechanical stabilities whenanatomic plates with distal locking screws were used in intraarticular distal humerus fractures in artiŞcial humerus models.© 2016 Turkish Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. This isan open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

🔖

Cite This Article

ATALAR, A. C., TUNALI, O., ERŞEN, A., KAPICIOĞLU, M. İ. S., SAĞLAM, Y., DEMİRHAN, M. S. (2017). Biomechanical comparison of orthogonal versus parallel double plating systems in intraarticular distal humerus fractures. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 51 - Sayı: 1, 23–28. https://ajindex.com/articles/162620

References (14)

  1. Rose SH, Melton 3rd LJ, Morrey BF, Ilstrup DM, Riggs BL. Epidemiologic features of humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982
  2. 24e30. Helfet DL, Hotchkiss RN. InternalŞxation of the distal humerus: a biome- chanical comparison of methods. J Orthop Trauma. 1990
  3. 4(3):260e264. Jupiter JB, Neff U, Holzach P, Allgower M. Intercondylar fractures of the hu- merus. An operative approach. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1985
  4. 67(2):226e239. O'Driscoll SW. Optimizing stability in distal humeral fractureŞxation. J shoulder Elb Surg/Am Shoulder Elb Surg. 2005
  5. 14(1 suppl S), 186Se94S. Tejwani NC, Murthy A, Park J, McLaurin TM, Egol KA, Kummer FJ. Fixation of extra-articular distal humerus fractures using one locking plate versus two reconstruction plates: a laboratory study. J trauma. 2009
  6. 66(3):795e799. Sanchez-Sotelo J, Torchia ME, O'Driscoll SW. Principle-based internalŞxation of distal humerus fractures. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg. 2001
  7. 5(4):179e187. Jacobson SR, Glisson RR, Urbaniak JR. Comparison of distal humerus fracture Şxation: a biomechanical study. J South Orthop Assoc. 1997
  8. 6(4):241e249. Self J, Viegas SF, Buford Jr WL, Patterson RM. A comparison of double-plate Şxation methods for complex distal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg.
  9. 4(1 Pt 1):10e16. Schemitsch EH, Tencer AF, Henley MB. Biomechanical evaluation of methods of internalŞxation of the distal humerus. J Orthop Trauma. 1994
  10. 8(6):468e475. Korner J, Diederichs G, Arzdorf M, et al. A biomechanical evaluation of methods of distal humerus fractureŞxation using locking compression plates versus conventional reconstruction plates. J Orthop Trauma. 2004
  11. 18(5):286e293. Stoffel K, Cunneen S, Morgan R, Nicholls R, Stachowiak G. Comparative stability of perpendicular versus parallel double-locking plating systems in osteoporotic comminuted distal humerus fractures. J Orthop Res. 2008
  12. 26(6):778e784. Penzkofer R, Hungerer S, Wipf F, von Oldenburg G, Augat P. Anatomical plate conŞguration affects mechanical performance in distal humerus fractures. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2010
  13. 25(10):972e978. Kollias CM, Darcy SP, Reed JG, Rosvold JM, Shrive NG, Hildebrand KA. Distal humerus internalŞxation: a biomechanical comparison of 90 degrees and parallel constructs. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2010
  14. 39(9):440e444. Zalavras CG, Vercillo MT, Jun BJ, Otarodifard K, Itamura JM, Lee TQ. Biome- chanical evaluation of parallel versus orthogonal plateŞxation of intra- articular distal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 20