Intramedullary Metacarpal Fracture Fixation: A Biomechanical Study of Screw Diameter and Comparison With Intramedullary Wire Stabilization

Interest in intramedullary metacarpal fracture fixation (IMFF) with screws is increasing. However, the optimal screw diameter for fracture fixation is not yet established. In theory, larger screws should be more stable, but there is concern about long-term sequelae of larger metacarpal head defects...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of hand surgery (American ed.) 2024-11, Vol.49 (11), p.1139.e1-1139.e7
Hauptverfasser: Graf, Alexander R., Ahmed, Adil S., Thompson, Dan, Wagner, Eric, Gottschalk, Michael, Suh, Nina, Seiler, John G.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1139.e7
container_issue 11
container_start_page 1139.e1
container_title The Journal of hand surgery (American ed.)
container_volume 49
creator Graf, Alexander R.
Ahmed, Adil S.
Thompson, Dan
Wagner, Eric
Gottschalk, Michael
Suh, Nina
Seiler, John G.
description Interest in intramedullary metacarpal fracture fixation (IMFF) with screws is increasing. However, the optimal screw diameter for fracture fixation is not yet established. In theory, larger screws should be more stable, but there is concern about long-term sequelae of larger metacarpal head defects and extensor mechanism injury created during insertion as well as implant cost. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare different diameter screws for IMFF to a popular and more cost-effective alternative of intramedullary wiring. Thirty-two cadaveric metacarpals were used in a transverse metacarpal shaft fracture model. Treatment groups consisted of IMFF with 3.0 × 60 mm, 3.5 x 60 mm, and 4.5 x 60 mm screws as well as 4 1.1-mm intramedullary wires. Cyclic cantilever bending was performed with the metacarpals mounted at 45° to simulate physiologic loading. Cyclical loading at 10, 20, and 30 N was performed to determine fracture displacement, stiffness, and ultimate force. At 10, 20, and 30 N of cyclical loading, all screw diameters tested provided similar stability as measured by fracture displacement and were superior to the wire group. However, ultimate force under load to failure testing was similar between the 3.5- and 4.5-mm screws and superior to 3.0-mm screws and wires. For IMFF, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.5-mm diameter screws provide adequate stability for early active motion and are superior to wires. When comparing the different screw diameters, 3.5- and 4.5-mm diameter screws offer similar construct stability and strength superior to the 3.0-mm diameter screw. Therefore, to minimize metacarpal head morbidity, smaller screw diameters may be preferable. This study suggests that IMFF with screws is biomechanically superior to wires in cantilever bending strength in the transverse fracture model. However, smaller screws may be sufficient to permit early active motion while minimizing metacarpal head morbidity.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.01.026
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2786810329</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0363502323000679</els_id><sourcerecordid>2786810329</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c222t-5ebdf0488581f6d031e6f88f72bd277d497cae68aafbc48673bddcf74e6582a93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1u1DAUhS0EokPhBVggL9kk-CdxPIhNGRhaqYjFgLq0HPta41ESD7YDlEfoU9fTKSy66Oou7jnf_TkIvaakpoSKd7t6t026ZoTxmtCaMPEELWjLaSVa0TxFC8IFr9rSPkEvUtoRUly8fY5OuFjSpmn5At1cTDnqEew8DDpe46-QtdFxrwe8jtrkOQJe-z86-zC9x2f4ow8jmK2evCmSTZ7tNQ4Ob0yE3_iTL6QMEevJ4lUY9zr6FCZ85fMWPxh05Qt5k3XvB__3Dv8SPXN6SPDqvp6iH-vP31fn1eW3Lxers8vKMMZy1UJvHWmkbCV1whJOQTgpXcd6y7rONsvOaBBSa9ebRoqO99Ya1zUgWsn0kp-it0fuPoafM6SsRp8MlLUmCHNSrJNCUsLZQcqOUhNDShGc2kc_lvUVJeqQgdqpQwbqkIEiVJUMiunNPX_uy73_Lf-eXgQfjgIoV_7yEFUyHiYDtvzEZGWDf4x_C8oQmwc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2786810329</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Intramedullary Metacarpal Fracture Fixation: A Biomechanical Study of Screw Diameter and Comparison With Intramedullary Wire Stabilization</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Graf, Alexander R. ; Ahmed, Adil S. ; Thompson, Dan ; Wagner, Eric ; Gottschalk, Michael ; Suh, Nina ; Seiler, John G.</creator><creatorcontrib>Graf, Alexander R. ; Ahmed, Adil S. ; Thompson, Dan ; Wagner, Eric ; Gottschalk, Michael ; Suh, Nina ; Seiler, John G.</creatorcontrib><description>Interest in intramedullary metacarpal fracture fixation (IMFF) with screws is increasing. However, the optimal screw diameter for fracture fixation is not yet established. In theory, larger screws should be more stable, but there is concern about long-term sequelae of larger metacarpal head defects and extensor mechanism injury created during insertion as well as implant cost. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare different diameter screws for IMFF to a popular and more cost-effective alternative of intramedullary wiring. Thirty-two cadaveric metacarpals were used in a transverse metacarpal shaft fracture model. Treatment groups consisted of IMFF with 3.0 × 60 mm, 3.5 x 60 mm, and 4.5 x 60 mm screws as well as 4 1.1-mm intramedullary wires. Cyclic cantilever bending was performed with the metacarpals mounted at 45° to simulate physiologic loading. Cyclical loading at 10, 20, and 30 N was performed to determine fracture displacement, stiffness, and ultimate force. At 10, 20, and 30 N of cyclical loading, all screw diameters tested provided similar stability as measured by fracture displacement and were superior to the wire group. However, ultimate force under load to failure testing was similar between the 3.5- and 4.5-mm screws and superior to 3.0-mm screws and wires. For IMFF, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.5-mm diameter screws provide adequate stability for early active motion and are superior to wires. When comparing the different screw diameters, 3.5- and 4.5-mm diameter screws offer similar construct stability and strength superior to the 3.0-mm diameter screw. Therefore, to minimize metacarpal head morbidity, smaller screw diameters may be preferable. This study suggests that IMFF with screws is biomechanically superior to wires in cantilever bending strength in the transverse fracture model. However, smaller screws may be sufficient to permit early active motion while minimizing metacarpal head morbidity.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0363-5023</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1531-6564</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-6564</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.01.026</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36914453</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Biomechanical ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Bone Screws ; Bone Wires ; Cadaver ; cantilever bending ; Female ; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - instrumentation ; Fractures, Bone - surgery ; headless cannulated screw ; Humans ; intramedullary screw ; Male ; Metacarpal Bones - injuries ; Metacarpal Bones - surgery ; metacarpal fracture ; Middle Aged</subject><ispartof>The Journal of hand surgery (American ed.), 2024-11, Vol.49 (11), p.1139.e1-1139.e7</ispartof><rights>2024 American Society for Surgery of the Hand</rights><rights>Copyright © 2024 American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c222t-5ebdf0488581f6d031e6f88f72bd277d497cae68aafbc48673bddcf74e6582a93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.01.026$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36914453$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Graf, Alexander R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ahmed, Adil S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, Dan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wagner, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gottschalk, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suh, Nina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seiler, John G.</creatorcontrib><title>Intramedullary Metacarpal Fracture Fixation: A Biomechanical Study of Screw Diameter and Comparison With Intramedullary Wire Stabilization</title><title>The Journal of hand surgery (American ed.)</title><addtitle>J Hand Surg Am</addtitle><description>Interest in intramedullary metacarpal fracture fixation (IMFF) with screws is increasing. However, the optimal screw diameter for fracture fixation is not yet established. In theory, larger screws should be more stable, but there is concern about long-term sequelae of larger metacarpal head defects and extensor mechanism injury created during insertion as well as implant cost. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare different diameter screws for IMFF to a popular and more cost-effective alternative of intramedullary wiring. Thirty-two cadaveric metacarpals were used in a transverse metacarpal shaft fracture model. Treatment groups consisted of IMFF with 3.0 × 60 mm, 3.5 x 60 mm, and 4.5 x 60 mm screws as well as 4 1.1-mm intramedullary wires. Cyclic cantilever bending was performed with the metacarpals mounted at 45° to simulate physiologic loading. Cyclical loading at 10, 20, and 30 N was performed to determine fracture displacement, stiffness, and ultimate force. At 10, 20, and 30 N of cyclical loading, all screw diameters tested provided similar stability as measured by fracture displacement and were superior to the wire group. However, ultimate force under load to failure testing was similar between the 3.5- and 4.5-mm screws and superior to 3.0-mm screws and wires. For IMFF, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.5-mm diameter screws provide adequate stability for early active motion and are superior to wires. When comparing the different screw diameters, 3.5- and 4.5-mm diameter screws offer similar construct stability and strength superior to the 3.0-mm diameter screw. Therefore, to minimize metacarpal head morbidity, smaller screw diameters may be preferable. This study suggests that IMFF with screws is biomechanically superior to wires in cantilever bending strength in the transverse fracture model. However, smaller screws may be sufficient to permit early active motion while minimizing metacarpal head morbidity.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biomechanical</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Bone Screws</subject><subject>Bone Wires</subject><subject>Cadaver</subject><subject>cantilever bending</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - instrumentation</subject><subject>Fractures, Bone - surgery</subject><subject>headless cannulated screw</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>intramedullary screw</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Metacarpal Bones - injuries</subject><subject>Metacarpal Bones - surgery</subject><subject>metacarpal fracture</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><issn>0363-5023</issn><issn>1531-6564</issn><issn>1531-6564</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1u1DAUhS0EokPhBVggL9kk-CdxPIhNGRhaqYjFgLq0HPta41ESD7YDlEfoU9fTKSy66Oou7jnf_TkIvaakpoSKd7t6t026ZoTxmtCaMPEELWjLaSVa0TxFC8IFr9rSPkEvUtoRUly8fY5OuFjSpmn5At1cTDnqEew8DDpe46-QtdFxrwe8jtrkOQJe-z86-zC9x2f4ow8jmK2evCmSTZ7tNQ4Ob0yE3_iTL6QMEevJ4lUY9zr6FCZ85fMWPxh05Qt5k3XvB__3Dv8SPXN6SPDqvp6iH-vP31fn1eW3Lxers8vKMMZy1UJvHWmkbCV1whJOQTgpXcd6y7rONsvOaBBSa9ebRoqO99Ya1zUgWsn0kp-it0fuPoafM6SsRp8MlLUmCHNSrJNCUsLZQcqOUhNDShGc2kc_lvUVJeqQgdqpQwbqkIEiVJUMiunNPX_uy73_Lf-eXgQfjgIoV_7yEFUyHiYDtvzEZGWDf4x_C8oQmwc</recordid><startdate>202411</startdate><enddate>202411</enddate><creator>Graf, Alexander R.</creator><creator>Ahmed, Adil S.</creator><creator>Thompson, Dan</creator><creator>Wagner, Eric</creator><creator>Gottschalk, Michael</creator><creator>Suh, Nina</creator><creator>Seiler, John G.</creator><general>Elsevier 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>202411</creationdate><title>Intramedullary Metacarpal Fracture Fixation: A Biomechanical Study of Screw Diameter and Comparison With Intramedullary Wire Stabilization</title><author>Graf, Alexander R. ; Ahmed, Adil S. ; Thompson, Dan ; Wagner, Eric ; Gottschalk, Michael ; Suh, Nina ; Seiler, John G.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c222t-5ebdf0488581f6d031e6f88f72bd277d497cae68aafbc48673bddcf74e6582a93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biomechanical</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Bone Screws</topic><topic>Bone Wires</topic><topic>Cadaver</topic><topic>cantilever bending</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - instrumentation</topic><topic>Fractures, Bone - surgery</topic><topic>headless cannulated screw</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>intramedullary screw</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Metacarpal Bones - injuries</topic><topic>Metacarpal Bones - surgery</topic><topic>metacarpal fracture</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Graf, Alexander R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ahmed, Adil S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, Dan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wagner, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gottschalk, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suh, Nina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seiler, John G.</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>The Journal of hand surgery (American ed.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Graf, Alexander R.</au><au>Ahmed, Adil S.</au><au>Thompson, Dan</au><au>Wagner, Eric</au><au>Gottschalk, Michael</au><au>Suh, Nina</au><au>Seiler, John G.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Intramedullary Metacarpal Fracture Fixation: A Biomechanical Study of Screw Diameter and Comparison With Intramedullary Wire Stabilization</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of hand surgery (American ed.)</jtitle><addtitle>J Hand Surg Am</addtitle><date>2024-11</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>1139.e1</spage><epage>1139.e7</epage><pages>1139.e1-1139.e7</pages><issn>0363-5023</issn><issn>1531-6564</issn><eissn>1531-6564</eissn><abstract>Interest in intramedullary metacarpal fracture fixation (IMFF) with screws is increasing. However, the optimal screw diameter for fracture fixation is not yet established. In theory, larger screws should be more stable, but there is concern about long-term sequelae of larger metacarpal head defects and extensor mechanism injury created during insertion as well as implant cost. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare different diameter screws for IMFF to a popular and more cost-effective alternative of intramedullary wiring. Thirty-two cadaveric metacarpals were used in a transverse metacarpal shaft fracture model. Treatment groups consisted of IMFF with 3.0 × 60 mm, 3.5 x 60 mm, and 4.5 x 60 mm screws as well as 4 1.1-mm intramedullary wires. Cyclic cantilever bending was performed with the metacarpals mounted at 45° to simulate physiologic loading. Cyclical loading at 10, 20, and 30 N was performed to determine fracture displacement, stiffness, and ultimate force. At 10, 20, and 30 N of cyclical loading, all screw diameters tested provided similar stability as measured by fracture displacement and were superior to the wire group. However, ultimate force under load to failure testing was similar between the 3.5- and 4.5-mm screws and superior to 3.0-mm screws and wires. For IMFF, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.5-mm diameter screws provide adequate stability for early active motion and are superior to wires. When comparing the different screw diameters, 3.5- and 4.5-mm diameter screws offer similar construct stability and strength superior to the 3.0-mm diameter screw. Therefore, to minimize metacarpal head morbidity, smaller screw diameters may be preferable. This study suggests that IMFF with screws is biomechanically superior to wires in cantilever bending strength in the transverse fracture model. However, smaller screws may be sufficient to permit early active motion while minimizing metacarpal head morbidity.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>36914453</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.01.026</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0363-5023
ispartof The Journal of hand surgery (American ed.), 2024-11, Vol.49 (11), p.1139.e1-1139.e7
issn 0363-5023
1531-6564
1531-6564
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2786810329
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Aged
Biomechanical
Biomechanical Phenomena
Bone Screws
Bone Wires
Cadaver
cantilever bending
Female
Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary - instrumentation
Fractures, Bone - surgery
headless cannulated screw
Humans
intramedullary screw
Male
Metacarpal Bones - injuries
Metacarpal Bones - surgery
metacarpal fracture
Middle Aged
title Intramedullary Metacarpal Fracture Fixation: A Biomechanical Study of Screw Diameter and Comparison With Intramedullary Wire Stabilization
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T12%3A08%3A35IST&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=Intramedullary%20Metacarpal%20Fracture%20Fixation:%20A%20Biomechanical%20Study%20of%20Screw%20Diameter%20and%20Comparison%20With%20Intramedullary%20Wire%20Stabilization&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20hand%20surgery%20(American%20ed.)&rft.au=Graf,%20Alexander%20R.&rft.date=2024-11&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1139.e1&rft.epage=1139.e7&rft.pages=1139.e1-1139.e7&rft.issn=0363-5023&rft.eissn=1531-6564&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.01.026&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2786810329%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=2786810329&rft_id=info:pmid/36914453&rft_els_id=S0363502323000679&rfr_iscdi=true