A Biomechanical Comparison of Distal Fixation for Bridge Plating in a Distal Radius Fracture Model

Purpose To compare the biomechanical properties of second versus third metacarpal distal fixation when using a radiocarpal spanning distraction plate in an unstable distal radius fracture model. Methods Biomechanical evaluation of the radiocarpal spanning distraction plate comparing second versus third metacarpal distal fixation was performed using a standardized model of an unstable wrist fracture in 10 matched-pair cadaveric specimens. Each fixation construct underwent a controlled cyclic loading protocol in flexion and extension. The resultant displacement and stiffness were calculated at the fracture site. After cyclic loading, each specimen was loaded to failure. The stiffness, maximum displacement, and load to failure were compared between the 2 groups. Results Cyclic loading in flexion demonstrated that distal fixation to the third metacarpal resulted in greater stiffness compared with the second metacarpal. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups with regards to maximum displacement at the fracture site in flexion. Cyclic loading in extension demonstrated no significant difference in stiffness or maximum displacement between the 2 groups. The average load to failure was similar for both groups. Conclusions Fixation to the third metacarpal resulted in greater stiffness in flexion. All other biomechanical parameters were similar when comparing distal fixation to the second or third metacarpal in distal radius fractures stabilized with a spanning internal distraction plate. Clinical relevance The treating surgeon should choose distal metacarpal fixation primarily based on fracture pattern, alignment, and soft tissue integrity. If a stiffer construct is desired, placement of the radiocarpal spanning plate at the third metacarpal is preferred.