Proximal humeral fracture fixation: a biomechanical comparison of two constructs
Background Different options exist for stabilizing proximal humeral fractures. This study compared the mechanical stability of 2 common proximal humeral fixation plates in bending and torsion. Methods Tests were conducted on 40 synthetic and 10 matched pairs of cadaveric humeri (evenly fixed with De...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery 2013, Vol.22 (1), p.129-136 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 136 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 129 |
container_title | Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Huff, Lawrence R., MD Taylor, Phillip A., MD Jani, Jai, MD Owen, John R., MS Wayne, Jennifer S., PhD Boardman, N. Douglas, MD |
description | Background Different options exist for stabilizing proximal humeral fractures. This study compared the mechanical stability of 2 common proximal humeral fixation plates in bending and torsion. Methods Tests were conducted on 40 synthetic and 10 matched pairs of cadaveric humeri (evenly fixed with DePuy S3 proximal humeral plating system [DePuy Orthopaedics, Warsaw, IN, USA] and Synthes proximal humerus locking compression plate [Synthes, Paoli, PA, USA]). Half of the humeri were tested by cantilevered bending in flexion, extension, varus, and valgus for 100 cycles of ±5 mm of displacement at 1 mm/s before loading to failure in varus. The other half were tested in torsion for 100 cycles of ±8° of rotational displacement at 1°/s before loading to failure in external rotation. Results Peak cyclic loads for synthetic constructs were higher for DePuy plates than Synthes plates in varus and valgus ( P < .0001), but a difference was not detected in extension ( P > .40) or flexion ( P = .0675). Peak cyclic loads for cadaveric constructs showed a significant difference in extension and flexion (Synthes > DePuy, P < .0001) and in varus (DePuy > Synthes, P < .05) but not in valgus ( P > .10). Bending stiffness during varus failure testing was higher for DePuy plates than Synthes plates ( P < .0001) for synthetic constructs. Regarding torsion of synthetic and cadaveric constructs, DePuy plates experienced higher peak cyclic torques over all cycles in both directions ( P < .0001). For synthetic constructs, DePuy plates showed higher torsional stiffness in external failure than Synthes plates ( P < .0001). Conclusions The DePuy plate was stiffer than the Synthes plate with varus and valgus bending, as well as in torsion. The Synthes plate tended to be stiffer in flexion and extension. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jse.2012.01.003 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1239059055</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1058274612000183</els_id><sourcerecordid>1239059055</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-fefbab07f62cf8ce3f7a24b7ba645526b10d167c3d413f90fc7c041f805a03403</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtr3TAQhUVoaV79AdkUL7uxM6OH7dtCoYQmKQQaaLoWsjwicm3rVrLb5N9HtzftoouCYMRwzoH5DmNnCBUC1udDNSSqOCCvACsAccCOUAle1grgRf6DakveyPqQHac0AMBGAn_FDjlXXG1Ee8Rub2N48JMZi_t1opini8Yua6TC-Qez-DC_K0zR-TCRvTezt1liw7Q10acwF8EVy6-QN3Na4mqXdMpeOjMmev08T9i3y093F9flzZerzxcfb0orG7mUjlxnOmhcza1rLQnXGC67pjO1VIrXHUKPdWNFL1G4DTjbWJDoWlAGhARxwt7uc7cx_FgpLXryydI4mpnCmjRysQGVn8pS3EttDClFcnob88nxUSPoHUg96AxS70BqQJ1BZs-b5_i1m6j_6_hDLgve7wWUj_zpKepkPc2Weh_JLroP_r_xH_5x29H_hvudHikNYY1zpqdRp-zRX3dN7opEnkvEVognUcmY8A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1239059055</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Proximal humeral fracture fixation: a biomechanical comparison of two constructs</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Huff, Lawrence R., MD ; Taylor, Phillip A., MD ; Jani, Jai, MD ; Owen, John R., MS ; Wayne, Jennifer S., PhD ; Boardman, N. Douglas, MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Huff, Lawrence R., MD ; Taylor, Phillip A., MD ; Jani, Jai, MD ; Owen, John R., MS ; Wayne, Jennifer S., PhD ; Boardman, N. Douglas, MD</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[Background Different options exist for stabilizing proximal humeral fractures. This study compared the mechanical stability of 2 common proximal humeral fixation plates in bending and torsion. Methods Tests were conducted on 40 synthetic and 10 matched pairs of cadaveric humeri (evenly fixed with DePuy S3 proximal humeral plating system [DePuy Orthopaedics, Warsaw, IN, USA] and Synthes proximal humerus locking compression plate [Synthes, Paoli, PA, USA]). Half of the humeri were tested by cantilevered bending in flexion, extension, varus, and valgus for 100 cycles of ±5 mm of displacement at 1 mm/s before loading to failure in varus. The other half were tested in torsion for 100 cycles of ±8° of rotational displacement at 1°/s before loading to failure in external rotation. Results Peak cyclic loads for synthetic constructs were higher for DePuy plates than Synthes plates in varus and valgus ( P < .0001), but a difference was not detected in extension ( P > .40) or flexion ( P = .0675). Peak cyclic loads for cadaveric constructs showed a significant difference in extension and flexion (Synthes > DePuy, P < .0001) and in varus (DePuy > Synthes, P < .05) but not in valgus ( P > .10). Bending stiffness during varus failure testing was higher for DePuy plates than Synthes plates ( P < .0001) for synthetic constructs. Regarding torsion of synthetic and cadaveric constructs, DePuy plates experienced higher peak cyclic torques over all cycles in both directions ( P < .0001). For synthetic constructs, DePuy plates showed higher torsional stiffness in external failure than Synthes plates ( P < .0001). Conclusions The DePuy plate was stiffer than the Synthes plate with varus and valgus bending, as well as in torsion. The Synthes plate tended to be stiffer in flexion and extension.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 1058-2746</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-6500</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.01.003</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22525938</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; bending ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; biomechanics ; Cadaver ; cadaveric study ; Fracture Fixation ; Humans ; locking plates ; Middle Aged ; Orthopedics ; Proximal humeral fracture ; sawbones ; Shoulder Fractures - surgery ; torsion</subject><ispartof>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, 2013, Vol.22 (1), p.129-136</ispartof><rights>Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees</rights><rights>2013 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-fefbab07f62cf8ce3f7a24b7ba645526b10d167c3d413f90fc7c041f805a03403</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-fefbab07f62cf8ce3f7a24b7ba645526b10d167c3d413f90fc7c041f805a03403</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1058274612000183$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,4010,27900,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22525938$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Huff, Lawrence R., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taylor, Phillip A., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jani, Jai, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Owen, John R., MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wayne, Jennifer S., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boardman, N. Douglas, MD</creatorcontrib><title>Proximal humeral fracture fixation: a biomechanical comparison of two constructs</title><title>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery</title><addtitle>J Shoulder Elbow Surg</addtitle><description><![CDATA[Background Different options exist for stabilizing proximal humeral fractures. This study compared the mechanical stability of 2 common proximal humeral fixation plates in bending and torsion. Methods Tests were conducted on 40 synthetic and 10 matched pairs of cadaveric humeri (evenly fixed with DePuy S3 proximal humeral plating system [DePuy Orthopaedics, Warsaw, IN, USA] and Synthes proximal humerus locking compression plate [Synthes, Paoli, PA, USA]). Half of the humeri were tested by cantilevered bending in flexion, extension, varus, and valgus for 100 cycles of ±5 mm of displacement at 1 mm/s before loading to failure in varus. The other half were tested in torsion for 100 cycles of ±8° of rotational displacement at 1°/s before loading to failure in external rotation. Results Peak cyclic loads for synthetic constructs were higher for DePuy plates than Synthes plates in varus and valgus ( P < .0001), but a difference was not detected in extension ( P > .40) or flexion ( P = .0675). Peak cyclic loads for cadaveric constructs showed a significant difference in extension and flexion (Synthes > DePuy, P < .0001) and in varus (DePuy > Synthes, P < .05) but not in valgus ( P > .10). Bending stiffness during varus failure testing was higher for DePuy plates than Synthes plates ( P < .0001) for synthetic constructs. Regarding torsion of synthetic and cadaveric constructs, DePuy plates experienced higher peak cyclic torques over all cycles in both directions ( P < .0001). For synthetic constructs, DePuy plates showed higher torsional stiffness in external failure than Synthes plates ( P < .0001). Conclusions The DePuy plate was stiffer than the Synthes plate with varus and valgus bending, as well as in torsion. The Synthes plate tended to be stiffer in flexion and extension.]]></description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>bending</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>biomechanics</subject><subject>Cadaver</subject><subject>cadaveric study</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>locking plates</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Proximal humeral fracture</subject><subject>sawbones</subject><subject>Shoulder Fractures - surgery</subject><subject>torsion</subject><issn>1058-2746</issn><issn>1532-6500</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUtr3TAQhUVoaV79AdkUL7uxM6OH7dtCoYQmKQQaaLoWsjwicm3rVrLb5N9HtzftoouCYMRwzoH5DmNnCBUC1udDNSSqOCCvACsAccCOUAle1grgRf6DakveyPqQHac0AMBGAn_FDjlXXG1Ee8Rub2N48JMZi_t1opini8Yua6TC-Qez-DC_K0zR-TCRvTezt1liw7Q10acwF8EVy6-QN3Na4mqXdMpeOjMmev08T9i3y093F9flzZerzxcfb0orG7mUjlxnOmhcza1rLQnXGC67pjO1VIrXHUKPdWNFL1G4DTjbWJDoWlAGhARxwt7uc7cx_FgpLXryydI4mpnCmjRysQGVn8pS3EttDClFcnob88nxUSPoHUg96AxS70BqQJ1BZs-b5_i1m6j_6_hDLgve7wWUj_zpKepkPc2Weh_JLroP_r_xH_5x29H_hvudHikNYY1zpqdRp-zRX3dN7opEnkvEVognUcmY8A</recordid><startdate>2013</startdate><enddate>2013</enddate><creator>Huff, Lawrence R., MD</creator><creator>Taylor, Phillip A., MD</creator><creator>Jani, Jai, MD</creator><creator>Owen, John R., MS</creator><creator>Wayne, Jennifer S., PhD</creator><creator>Boardman, N. Douglas, MD</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2013</creationdate><title>Proximal humeral fracture fixation: a biomechanical comparison of two constructs</title><author>Huff, Lawrence R., MD ; Taylor, Phillip A., MD ; Jani, Jai, MD ; Owen, John R., MS ; Wayne, Jennifer S., PhD ; Boardman, N. Douglas, MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-fefbab07f62cf8ce3f7a24b7ba645526b10d167c3d413f90fc7c041f805a03403</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>bending</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>biomechanics</topic><topic>Cadaver</topic><topic>cadaveric study</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>locking plates</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Proximal humeral fracture</topic><topic>sawbones</topic><topic>Shoulder Fractures - surgery</topic><topic>torsion</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Huff, Lawrence R., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taylor, Phillip A., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jani, Jai, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Owen, John R., MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wayne, Jennifer S., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boardman, N. Douglas, MD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Huff, Lawrence R., MD</au><au>Taylor, Phillip A., MD</au><au>Jani, Jai, MD</au><au>Owen, John R., MS</au><au>Wayne, Jennifer S., PhD</au><au>Boardman, N. Douglas, MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Proximal humeral fracture fixation: a biomechanical comparison of two constructs</atitle><jtitle>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Shoulder Elbow Surg</addtitle><date>2013</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>129</spage><epage>136</epage><pages>129-136</pages><issn>1058-2746</issn><eissn>1532-6500</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[Background Different options exist for stabilizing proximal humeral fractures. This study compared the mechanical stability of 2 common proximal humeral fixation plates in bending and torsion. Methods Tests were conducted on 40 synthetic and 10 matched pairs of cadaveric humeri (evenly fixed with DePuy S3 proximal humeral plating system [DePuy Orthopaedics, Warsaw, IN, USA] and Synthes proximal humerus locking compression plate [Synthes, Paoli, PA, USA]). Half of the humeri were tested by cantilevered bending in flexion, extension, varus, and valgus for 100 cycles of ±5 mm of displacement at 1 mm/s before loading to failure in varus. The other half were tested in torsion for 100 cycles of ±8° of rotational displacement at 1°/s before loading to failure in external rotation. Results Peak cyclic loads for synthetic constructs were higher for DePuy plates than Synthes plates in varus and valgus ( P < .0001), but a difference was not detected in extension ( P > .40) or flexion ( P = .0675). Peak cyclic loads for cadaveric constructs showed a significant difference in extension and flexion (Synthes > DePuy, P < .0001) and in varus (DePuy > Synthes, P < .05) but not in valgus ( P > .10). Bending stiffness during varus failure testing was higher for DePuy plates than Synthes plates ( P < .0001) for synthetic constructs. Regarding torsion of synthetic and cadaveric constructs, DePuy plates experienced higher peak cyclic torques over all cycles in both directions ( P < .0001). For synthetic constructs, DePuy plates showed higher torsional stiffness in external failure than Synthes plates ( P < .0001). Conclusions The DePuy plate was stiffer than the Synthes plate with varus and valgus bending, as well as in torsion. The Synthes plate tended to be stiffer in flexion and extension.]]></abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>22525938</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jse.2012.01.003</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1058-2746 |
ispartof | Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, 2013, Vol.22 (1), p.129-136 |
issn | 1058-2746 1532-6500 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1239059055 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Adult Aged bending Biomechanical Phenomena biomechanics Cadaver cadaveric study Fracture Fixation Humans locking plates Middle Aged Orthopedics Proximal humeral fracture sawbones Shoulder Fractures - surgery torsion |
title | Proximal humeral fracture fixation: a biomechanical comparison of two constructs |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T07%3A54%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Proximal%20humeral%20fracture%20fixation:%20a%20biomechanical%20comparison%20of%20two%20constructs&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20shoulder%20and%20elbow%20surgery&rft.au=Huff,%20Lawrence%20R.,%20MD&rft.date=2013&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=129&rft.epage=136&rft.pages=129-136&rft.issn=1058-2746&rft.eissn=1532-6500&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jse.2012.01.003&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1239059055%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1239059055&rft_id=info:pmid/22525938&rft_els_id=S1058274612000183&rfr_iscdi=true |