Top

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Published in:

01-04-2003 | Original Article

Proximal humeral fractures: how stiff should an implant be?

A comparative mechanical study with new implants in human specimens

Authors: H. Lill, P. Hepp, J. Korner, J.-P. Kassi, A. P. Verheyden, C. Josten, G. N. Duda

Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 2-3/2003

Abstract

Background

The objective of this study was to determine the in vitro characteristics of the clinically used and newly developed implants for the stabilization of proximal humeral fractures under static and cyclic loading. The goal was to optimize implant stiffness for fracture stabilization even in weak bone stock.

Methods

In a laboratory study using 35 fresh human humeri, the specimens were randomized into 5 groups, which included the clinically used humerus T-plate (HTP), the cross-screw osteosynthesis (CSO), the unreamed proximal humerus nail with spiral blade (UHN), the recently developed Synclaw Proximal Humerus Nail (Synclaw PHN) and the angle-stable Locking Compression Plate Proximal Humerus (LCP-PH). The implant stiffness was determined for three clinically relevant load cases: axial compression, torsion and varus bending. In addition, a cyclic varus-bending test was performed to determine the implant properties under cyclic loading.

Results

In contrast to a rather elastic and minimally invasive implant(LCP-PH), the conventionally designed ones (Synclaw PHN, CSO, HTP, UHN) showed rather high stiffness values under static loading. In cyclic loading, a strong decrease in stiffness (p<0.05) was found for the rigid implants HTP and UHN. In comparison with the other implants, only the elastic implant (LCP-PH) showed a significantly lower load reduction in a weak bone stock (17±6.2%).

Conclusion

The high initial stiffness of rigid implants led to an early loosening and failure of the implant-bone interface under cyclic loading. Implants with low stiffness and elastic characteristics, however, appear to minimize the peak stresses at the bone-implant interface, making them particularly suitable for fracture fixation in osteoporotic bone.

Blum J, Rommens PM, Janzing H, Langendorff HS (1998) Retrograde Nagelung von Humerusschaftfrakturen mit dem UHN. Eine internationale multizentrische Studie. Unfallchirurg 101:342–352CrossRefPubMed

Blum J, Machemer H, Hogner M, Baumgart F et al (2000) Biomechanik der Verriegelungsmarknagelung bei Oberarmschaftfrakturen. Vergleichsuntersuchung zweier Marknagelsysteme und des Effekts der interfragmentären Kompression beim unaufgebohrten Humerusnagel. Unfallchirurg 103:183–190CrossRefPubMed

Dalton JE, Salkeld SL, Satterwhite YE, Cook SD (1993) A biomechanical comparison of intramedullary nailing systems for the humerus. J Orthop Trauma 7:367–374PubMed

Duda GN, Kirchner H, Wilke HJ, Claes L (1998) A method to determine the 3-D stiffness of fracture fixation devices and its application to predict inter-fragmentary movement. J Biomech 31:247–252CrossRefPubMed

Henley MB, Monroe M, Tencer AF (1991) Biomechanical comparison of methods of fixation of a midshaft osteotomy of the humerus. J Orthop Trauma 5:14–20PubMed

Instrum K, Fennell C, Shrive N, Damson E et al (1998) Semitubular blade plate fixation in proximal humeral fractures: a biomechanical study in a cadaveric model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 7:462–466PubMed

Koval KJ, Blair B, Takei R, Kummer FJ, Zuckerman JD (1996) Surgical neck fractures of the proximal humerus: a laboratory evaluation of ten fixation techniques. J Trauma 40:778–783PubMed

Koval KJ, Gallagher MA, Marsicano JG, Cuomo F et al (1997) Functional outcome after minimally displaced fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:203–207PubMed

Lill H, Giers R, Schmidt A, Echtermeyer V (1996) Die dislozierte subkapitale Humerusfraktur. Operative Behandlung mit einer modifizierten Kirschner-Drahttechnik. Chir Praxis 50:427–438

10.

Lill H, Lange K, Prasse-Badde J, Schmidt A et al (1997) Die T-Platten-Osteosynthese bei dislozierten proximalen Humerusfrakturen. Unfallchirurgie 23:183–192PubMed

11.

Lill H, Korner J, Glasmacher S, Verheyden P et al (2001) Die gekreuzte Schraubenosteosynthese proximaler Humerusfrakturen. Unfallchirurg (in press)

12.

Müller ME, Allgöwer M, Schneider R, Willenberger H (1992) Manual der Osteosynthese. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

13.

Naidu SH, Bixler B, Capo JT, Moulton MJ, Radin A (1997) Percutaneous pinning of proximal humerus fractures: a biomechanical study. Orthopedics 20:1073–1076PubMed

14.

Rajesh MB, Manning P, Neumann L, Parry M, Wallace WA (2000) The effect of bone quality on intra-medullary fixation of the proximal humerus using a retrograde nail. Osteoporosis Int 11:45

15.

Ruch DS, Glisson RR, Marr AW, Russell GB, Nunley JA (2000) Fixation of three-part proximal humeral fractures: a biomechanical evaluation. J Orthop Trauma 14:36–40CrossRefPubMed

16.

Sehr JR, Szabo RM (1988) Semitubular blade plate for fixation in the proximal humerus. J Orthop Trauma 2:327–332PubMed

17.

Verheyden P, Streidt A, Lill H, Weise K, Josten C (1998) Der unaufgebohrte Humerusnagel—Indikationen, Technik und klinische Erfahrungen. Akt Traumatol 28:251–257

18.

Weinstein DM, Gomez MA, Hawkins RJ (1994) Biomechanical comparison of tension-band wiring versus plating in the fixation of three-part fractures of the proximal humerus. Orthop Trans 18:3

19.

Wheeler DL, Colville MR (1997) Biomechanical comparison of intramedullary and percutaneous pin fixation for proximal humeral fracture fixation. J Orthop Trauma 11:363–367CrossRefPubMed

20.

Williams GR Jr, Copley LA, Iannotti JP, Lisser SP (1997) The influence of intramedullary fixation on figure-of-eight wiring for surgical neck fractures of the proximal humerus: a biomechanical comparison. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 6:423–428PubMed

21.

Zimmerman MC, Waite AM, Deehan M, Tovey J, Oppenheim W (1994) A biomechanical analysis of four humeral fracture fixation systems. J Orthop Trauma 8:233–239PubMed

Title: Proximal humeral fractures: how stiff should an implant be?
A comparative mechanical study with new implants in human specimens
Authors: H. Lill
P. Hepp
J. Korner
J.-P. Kassi
A. P. Verheyden
C. Josten
G. N. Duda
Publication date: 01-04-2003
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Issue 2-3/2003
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Electronic ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-002-0465-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Proximal humeral fractures: how stiff should an implant be?

A comparative mechanical study with new implants in human specimens

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2-3/2003

Pycnodysostosis associated with bilateral congenital pseudarthrosis of the clavicle

Synovial involvement in hemangiomatosis

Isolated peripheral neurilemoma attached to the tendon of the flexor digitorum longus muscle

Our response to the "Letter to the Editor" concerning Tero Heikkinen et al. (2002) Hemiarthroplasty or osteosynthesis in cervical hip fractures: matched-pair analysis in 892 patients

Reduced hepatic transcription factor activation and expression of IL-6 and ICAM-1 after hemorrhage by NO scavening

Echinococcosis granulosus/cysticus of the tibia