A biomechanical assessment of fixation methods for a coronoid prosthesis

Abstract Background The coronoid process is an integral component for maintaining elbow joint stability. When fixation of a fracture is not possible, prosthetic replacement may be a feasible solution for restoring stability. The purpose of this in-vitro biomechanical study was to compare fixation me...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical biomechanics (Bristol) 2016-02, Vol.32, p.14-19
Hauptverfasser: Gray, Alia B, Alolabi, Bashar, Deluce, Simon, Ferreira, Louis M, Athwal, George S, King, Graham J.W, Johnson, James A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 19
container_issue
container_start_page 14
container_title Clinical biomechanics (Bristol)
container_volume 32
creator Gray, Alia B
Alolabi, Bashar
Deluce, Simon
Ferreira, Louis M
Athwal, George S
King, Graham J.W
Johnson, James A
description Abstract Background The coronoid process is an integral component for maintaining elbow joint stability. When fixation of a fracture is not possible, prosthetic replacement may be a feasible solution for restoring stability. The purpose of this in-vitro biomechanical study was to compare fixation methods for a coronoid implant. Methods A coronoid prosthesis was subjected to distally-directed tip loading after implantation using four fixation methods: press-fit, anterior-to-posterior screws, posterior-to-anterior screws, and cement. Testing was performed on seven fresh-frozen ulnae in a repeated-measures model. Rounds of cyclic loading were applied at 1 Hz, for 100 cycles, increased in 50 N increments up to a maximum of 400 N. Micro-motion of the implant was quantified using an optical-tracking system. Outcome variables included total displacement, distal translation, gapping, anterior translation and axial stem rotation. Findings Cement fixation reduced implant micro-motion compared to screw fixation, while the greatest implant micro-motion was observed in press-fit fixation. Comparing screw-fixation techniques, posterior-anterior screws provided superior stability only in distal translation. The implant did not experience displacements exceeding 0.9 mm with screw or cement fixation. Interpretation Cement fixation provides the best initial fixation for a coronoid implant. However, the stability provided by both methods of screw fixation may be sufficient to allow osseous integration to be achieved for long-term fixation. Large displacements were observed using the press-fit fixation technique, suggesting that modifications would need to be developed and tested before this technique could be recommended for clinical application.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.11.017
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1835562469</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0268003315003198</els_id><sourcerecordid>1811898834</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c498t-5a4248ef943eab8596a044cf05abc7315293c54315d347ef6a8244c705b63a323</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkk1v1DAQQC0EotvCX0DhxiXB44_YviBVK0orVeqhcLYcZ6L1ksTFziL67-toF4S40IttyW9mNPOGkPdAG6DQftw3fgxzF-KEftcwCrIBaCioF2QDWpkamIKXZENZq2tKOT8j5znvKaWCSfWanLFWKcmY2ZDry-qUx83Bu7FyOWPOE85LFYdqCL_cEuJcTbjsYp-rIabKVT6mOMfQVw8p5mWHOeQ35NXgxoxvT_cF-Xb1-ev2ur69-3KzvbytvTB6qaUTTGgcjODoOi1N66gQfqDSdV5xkMxwL0V59FwoHFqnWflXVHYtd5zxC_LhmLeU_nHAvNgpZI_j6GaMh2xBcylbJlrzDBRAG625-D-qFC2D5VoV1BxRX3rPCQf7kMLk0qMFalc9dm__0mNXPRbAFj0l9t2pzKGbsP8T-dtHAbZHAMsIfwZMNvuAs8c-JPSL7WN4VplP_2RZyVXvd3zEvI-HNBdHFmxmltr7dU_WNQFZTjCaPwEvK7oi</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1770879387</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A biomechanical assessment of fixation methods for a coronoid prosthesis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Gray, Alia B ; Alolabi, Bashar ; Deluce, Simon ; Ferreira, Louis M ; Athwal, George S ; King, Graham J.W ; Johnson, James A</creator><creatorcontrib>Gray, Alia B ; Alolabi, Bashar ; Deluce, Simon ; Ferreira, Louis M ; Athwal, George S ; King, Graham J.W ; Johnson, James A</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background The coronoid process is an integral component for maintaining elbow joint stability. When fixation of a fracture is not possible, prosthetic replacement may be a feasible solution for restoring stability. The purpose of this in-vitro biomechanical study was to compare fixation methods for a coronoid implant. Methods A coronoid prosthesis was subjected to distally-directed tip loading after implantation using four fixation methods: press-fit, anterior-to-posterior screws, posterior-to-anterior screws, and cement. Testing was performed on seven fresh-frozen ulnae in a repeated-measures model. Rounds of cyclic loading were applied at 1 Hz, for 100 cycles, increased in 50 N increments up to a maximum of 400 N. Micro-motion of the implant was quantified using an optical-tracking system. Outcome variables included total displacement, distal translation, gapping, anterior translation and axial stem rotation. Findings Cement fixation reduced implant micro-motion compared to screw fixation, while the greatest implant micro-motion was observed in press-fit fixation. Comparing screw-fixation techniques, posterior-anterior screws provided superior stability only in distal translation. The implant did not experience displacements exceeding 0.9 mm with screw or cement fixation. Interpretation Cement fixation provides the best initial fixation for a coronoid implant. However, the stability provided by both methods of screw fixation may be sufficient to allow osseous integration to be achieved for long-term fixation. Large displacements were observed using the press-fit fixation technique, suggesting that modifications would need to be developed and tested before this technique could be recommended for clinical application.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0268-0033</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1271</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.11.017</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26775229</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Biomechanics ; Bone Cements ; Bone Screws ; Cements ; Coronoid ; Displacement ; Elbow ; Elbow Joint - surgery ; Elbow Prosthesis ; Female ; Fixation ; Fracture ; Fractures, Bone - surgery ; Humans ; Ligaments, Articular - surgery ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Motion ; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation ; Prosthesis ; Prosthesis Implantation ; Prosthetics ; Screws ; Stability ; Surgical implants ; Ulna - surgery ; Ulna Fractures - surgery</subject><ispartof>Clinical biomechanics (Bristol), 2016-02, Vol.32, p.14-19</ispartof><rights>American Society of Biomechanics</rights><rights>2015 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c498t-5a4248ef943eab8596a044cf05abc7315293c54315d347ef6a8244c705b63a323</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c498t-5a4248ef943eab8596a044cf05abc7315293c54315d347ef6a8244c705b63a323</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.11.017$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26775229$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gray, Alia B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alolabi, Bashar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deluce, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Louis M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Athwal, George S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, Graham J.W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, James A</creatorcontrib><title>A biomechanical assessment of fixation methods for a coronoid prosthesis</title><title>Clinical biomechanics (Bristol)</title><addtitle>Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)</addtitle><description>Abstract Background The coronoid process is an integral component for maintaining elbow joint stability. When fixation of a fracture is not possible, prosthetic replacement may be a feasible solution for restoring stability. The purpose of this in-vitro biomechanical study was to compare fixation methods for a coronoid implant. Methods A coronoid prosthesis was subjected to distally-directed tip loading after implantation using four fixation methods: press-fit, anterior-to-posterior screws, posterior-to-anterior screws, and cement. Testing was performed on seven fresh-frozen ulnae in a repeated-measures model. Rounds of cyclic loading were applied at 1 Hz, for 100 cycles, increased in 50 N increments up to a maximum of 400 N. Micro-motion of the implant was quantified using an optical-tracking system. Outcome variables included total displacement, distal translation, gapping, anterior translation and axial stem rotation. Findings Cement fixation reduced implant micro-motion compared to screw fixation, while the greatest implant micro-motion was observed in press-fit fixation. Comparing screw-fixation techniques, posterior-anterior screws provided superior stability only in distal translation. The implant did not experience displacements exceeding 0.9 mm with screw or cement fixation. Interpretation Cement fixation provides the best initial fixation for a coronoid implant. However, the stability provided by both methods of screw fixation may be sufficient to allow osseous integration to be achieved for long-term fixation. Large displacements were observed using the press-fit fixation technique, suggesting that modifications would need to be developed and tested before this technique could be recommended for clinical application.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Biomechanics</subject><subject>Bone Cements</subject><subject>Bone Screws</subject><subject>Cements</subject><subject>Coronoid</subject><subject>Displacement</subject><subject>Elbow</subject><subject>Elbow Joint - surgery</subject><subject>Elbow Prosthesis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fixation</subject><subject>Fracture</subject><subject>Fractures, Bone - surgery</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Ligaments, Articular - surgery</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Motion</subject><subject>Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Prosthesis</subject><subject>Prosthesis Implantation</subject><subject>Prosthetics</subject><subject>Screws</subject><subject>Stability</subject><subject>Surgical implants</subject><subject>Ulna - surgery</subject><subject>Ulna Fractures - surgery</subject><issn>0268-0033</issn><issn>1879-1271</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkk1v1DAQQC0EotvCX0DhxiXB44_YviBVK0orVeqhcLYcZ6L1ksTFziL67-toF4S40IttyW9mNPOGkPdAG6DQftw3fgxzF-KEftcwCrIBaCioF2QDWpkamIKXZENZq2tKOT8j5znvKaWCSfWanLFWKcmY2ZDry-qUx83Bu7FyOWPOE85LFYdqCL_cEuJcTbjsYp-rIabKVT6mOMfQVw8p5mWHOeQ35NXgxoxvT_cF-Xb1-ev2ur69-3KzvbytvTB6qaUTTGgcjODoOi1N66gQfqDSdV5xkMxwL0V59FwoHFqnWflXVHYtd5zxC_LhmLeU_nHAvNgpZI_j6GaMh2xBcylbJlrzDBRAG625-D-qFC2D5VoV1BxRX3rPCQf7kMLk0qMFalc9dm__0mNXPRbAFj0l9t2pzKGbsP8T-dtHAbZHAMsIfwZMNvuAs8c-JPSL7WN4VplP_2RZyVXvd3zEvI-HNBdHFmxmltr7dU_WNQFZTjCaPwEvK7oi</recordid><startdate>20160201</startdate><enddate>20160201</enddate><creator>Gray, Alia B</creator><creator>Alolabi, Bashar</creator><creator>Deluce, Simon</creator><creator>Ferreira, Louis M</creator><creator>Athwal, George S</creator><creator>King, Graham J.W</creator><creator>Johnson, James A</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</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><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160201</creationdate><title>A biomechanical assessment of fixation methods for a coronoid prosthesis</title><author>Gray, Alia B ; Alolabi, Bashar ; Deluce, Simon ; Ferreira, Louis M ; Athwal, George S ; King, Graham J.W ; Johnson, James A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c498t-5a4248ef943eab8596a044cf05abc7315293c54315d347ef6a8244c705b63a323</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Biomechanics</topic><topic>Bone Cements</topic><topic>Bone Screws</topic><topic>Cements</topic><topic>Coronoid</topic><topic>Displacement</topic><topic>Elbow</topic><topic>Elbow Joint - surgery</topic><topic>Elbow Prosthesis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fixation</topic><topic>Fracture</topic><topic>Fractures, Bone - surgery</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Ligaments, Articular - surgery</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Motion</topic><topic>Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Prosthesis</topic><topic>Prosthesis Implantation</topic><topic>Prosthetics</topic><topic>Screws</topic><topic>Stability</topic><topic>Surgical implants</topic><topic>Ulna - surgery</topic><topic>Ulna Fractures - surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gray, Alia B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alolabi, Bashar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deluce, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Louis M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Athwal, George S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, Graham J.W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, James A</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><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><jtitle>Clinical biomechanics (Bristol)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gray, Alia B</au><au>Alolabi, Bashar</au><au>Deluce, Simon</au><au>Ferreira, Louis M</au><au>Athwal, George S</au><au>King, Graham J.W</au><au>Johnson, James A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A biomechanical assessment of fixation methods for a coronoid prosthesis</atitle><jtitle>Clinical biomechanics (Bristol)</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)</addtitle><date>2016-02-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>32</volume><spage>14</spage><epage>19</epage><pages>14-19</pages><issn>0268-0033</issn><eissn>1879-1271</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background The coronoid process is an integral component for maintaining elbow joint stability. When fixation of a fracture is not possible, prosthetic replacement may be a feasible solution for restoring stability. The purpose of this in-vitro biomechanical study was to compare fixation methods for a coronoid implant. Methods A coronoid prosthesis was subjected to distally-directed tip loading after implantation using four fixation methods: press-fit, anterior-to-posterior screws, posterior-to-anterior screws, and cement. Testing was performed on seven fresh-frozen ulnae in a repeated-measures model. Rounds of cyclic loading were applied at 1 Hz, for 100 cycles, increased in 50 N increments up to a maximum of 400 N. Micro-motion of the implant was quantified using an optical-tracking system. Outcome variables included total displacement, distal translation, gapping, anterior translation and axial stem rotation. Findings Cement fixation reduced implant micro-motion compared to screw fixation, while the greatest implant micro-motion was observed in press-fit fixation. Comparing screw-fixation techniques, posterior-anterior screws provided superior stability only in distal translation. The implant did not experience displacements exceeding 0.9 mm with screw or cement fixation. Interpretation Cement fixation provides the best initial fixation for a coronoid implant. However, the stability provided by both methods of screw fixation may be sufficient to allow osseous integration to be achieved for long-term fixation. Large displacements were observed using the press-fit fixation technique, suggesting that modifications would need to be developed and tested before this technique could be recommended for clinical application.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>26775229</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.11.017</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0268-0033
ispartof Clinical biomechanics (Bristol), 2016-02, Vol.32, p.14-19
issn 0268-0033
1879-1271
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1835562469
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biomechanical Phenomena
Biomechanics
Bone Cements
Bone Screws
Cements
Coronoid
Displacement
Elbow
Elbow Joint - surgery
Elbow Prosthesis
Female
Fixation
Fracture
Fractures, Bone - surgery
Humans
Ligaments, Articular - surgery
Male
Middle Aged
Motion
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Prosthesis
Prosthesis Implantation
Prosthetics
Screws
Stability
Surgical implants
Ulna - surgery
Ulna Fractures - surgery
title A biomechanical assessment of fixation methods for a coronoid prosthesis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T08%3A03%3A56IST&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=A%20biomechanical%20assessment%20of%20fixation%20methods%20for%20a%20coronoid%20prosthesis&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20biomechanics%20(Bristol)&rft.au=Gray,%20Alia%20B&rft.date=2016-02-01&rft.volume=32&rft.spage=14&rft.epage=19&rft.pages=14-19&rft.issn=0268-0033&rft.eissn=1879-1271&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.11.017&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1811898834%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=1770879387&rft_id=info:pmid/26775229&rft_els_id=S0268003315003198&rfr_iscdi=true