دورية أكاديمية
Dual plating of humeral shaft fractures: orthogonal plates biomechanically outperform side-by-side plates.
| العنوان: | Dual plating of humeral shaft fractures: orthogonal plates biomechanically outperform side-by-side plates. |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Kosmopoulos V; Bone and Joint Research Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Boulevard (CBH 407), Fort Worth, TX, 76107, USA, victor.kosmopoulos@yahoo.com., Nana AD |
| المصدر: | Clinical orthopaedics and related research [Clin Orthop Relat Res] 2014 Apr; Vol. 472 (4), pp. 1310-7. Date of Electronic Publication: 2013 Nov 12. |
| نوع المنشور: | Comparative Study; Journal Article |
| اللغة: | English |
| بيانات الدورية: | Publisher: Wolters Kluwer Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 0075674 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1528-1132 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 0009921X NLM ISO Abbreviation: Clin Orthop Relat Res Subsets: MEDLINE |
| أسماء مطبوعة: | Publication: 2018- : [New York, NY] : Wolters Kluwer Original Publication: Philadelphia : Lippincott, |
| مواضيع طبية MeSH: | Bone Plates* , Prosthesis Design*, Fracture Fixation, Internal/*instrumentation , Humeral Fractures/*surgery , Humerus/*surgery, Adult ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Compressive Strength ; Computer Simulation ; Finite Element Analysis ; Humans ; Humeral Fractures/pathology ; Humeral Fractures/physiopathology ; Humerus/pathology ; Humerus/physiopathology ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Materials Testing ; Stress, Mechanical ; Torsion, Mechanical ; Weight-Bearing |
| مستخلص: | Background: Single large-fragment plate constructs currently are the norm for internal fixation of middiaphyseal humerus fractures. In cases where humeral size is limited, however, dual small-fragment locking plate constructs may serve as an alternative. The mechanical effects of different possible plate configurations around the humeral diaphysis may be important, but to our knowledge, have yet to be investigated. Questions/purposes: We used finite element analysis to compare the simulated mechanical performance of five different dual small-fragment locking plate construct configurations for humeral middiaphyseal fracture fixation in terms of (1) stiffness, (2) stress shielding of bone, (3) hardware stresses, and (4) interfragmentary strain. Methods: Middiaphyseal humeral fracture fixation was simulated using the finite element method. Three 90° and two side-by-side seven-hole and nine-hole small-fragment dual locking plate configurations were tested in compression, torsion, and combined loading. The configurations chosen are based on implantation using either a posterior or anterolateral approach. Results: All three of the 90° configurations were more effective in restoring the intact compressive and torsional stiffness as compared with the side-by-side configurations, resulted in less stress shielding and stressed hardware, and showed interfragmentary strains between 5% to 10% in torsion and combined loading. Conclusions: The nine-hole plate anterior and seven-hole plate lateral (90° apart) configuration provided the best fixation. Our findings show the mechanical importance of plate placement with relation to loading in dual-plate fracture-fixation constructs. Clinical Relevance: The results presented provide novel biomechanical information for the orthopaedic surgeon considering different treatment options for middiaphyseal humeral fractures. |
| References: | J Trauma. 2006 Apr;60(4):830-5. (PMID: 16612304) J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002 Nov;84(8):1093-110. (PMID: 12463652) J Orthop Trauma. 2008 Nov-Dec;22(10):709-15. (PMID: 18978547) Injury. 2000 May;31 Suppl 2:S-B37-50. (PMID: 10853760) J Orthop Trauma. 2011 May;25(5):300-5. (PMID: 21464747) Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Aug;(377):235-40. (PMID: 10943207) J Orthop Trauma. 2004 Sep;18(8):488-93. (PMID: 15475843) Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009 Feb;24(2):203-9. (PMID: 19070409) J Biomech. 1984;17(5):349-61. (PMID: 6736070) Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Feb;(347):79-85. (PMID: 9520877) Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2011 Sep;225(9):845-56. (PMID: 22070022) J Orthop Trauma. 2010 Apr;24(4):207-11. (PMID: 20335752) Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 Jul;(232):139-51. (PMID: 3289811) Injury. 2003 Nov;34 Suppl 2:B63-76. (PMID: 14580987) J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Jul-Aug;11(4):331-8. (PMID: 12195250) Injury. 2003 Nov;34 Suppl 2:B11-9. (PMID: 14580982) Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992 Jan;(274):202-12. (PMID: 1729005) J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Aug;84(8):1315-22. (PMID: 12177259) Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003 Apr;123(2-3):74-81. (PMID: 12721684) Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2007 Aug;33(4):337-44. (PMID: 26814726) J Biomech. 1993 Feb;26(2):111-9. (PMID: 8429054) Injury. 2009 Jul;40(7):683-91. (PMID: 19464682) J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991 Aug;73(7):1020-4. (PMID: 1874763) Injury. 2007 Mar;38(3):358-64. (PMID: 17296199) J Orthop Trauma. 2012 Sep;26(9):528-32. (PMID: 22377506) J Biomech. 1986;19(1):85-7. (PMID: 3949819) Acta Orthop. 2007 Feb;78(1):143-50. (PMID: 17453406) Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2002;216(1):31-5. (PMID: 11905558) J Orthop Trauma. 2008 Aug;22(7):479-86. (PMID: 18670289) Injury. 2000 May;31 Suppl 2:S-B51-62. (PMID: 10853761) J Biomech. 2008;41(3):515-22. (PMID: 18076887) Injury. 2003 Nov;34 Suppl 2:B31-42. (PMID: 14580984) |
| تواريخ الأحداث: | Date Created: 20131113 Date Completed: 20140502 Latest Revision: 20220408 |
| رمز التحديث: | 20240628 |
| مُعرف محوري في PubMed: | PMC3940765 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11999-013-3379-7 |
| PMID: | 24218163 |
| قاعدة البيانات: | MEDLINE |
Find this article in full text from Springer Verlag. 
Full Text Finder كن أول من يترك تعليقا!