Mechanical stability study of three techniques used in the fixation of transverse and oblique metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction fractures of the distal humerus in children: a finite element analysis.
Biomechanical study
Elastic stable intramedullary nails
External fixator
Finite element analysis
Metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction fracture
Pinning fixation
Supracondylar humerus fracture
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
ISSN: 1749-799X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Surg Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265112
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Jan 2020
31 Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
13
11
2019
accepted:
16
01
2020
entrez:
6
2
2020
pubmed:
6
2
2020
medline:
24
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Management of distal humerus metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction (MDJ) region fractures can be very challenging mainly because of the higher location and characteristics of the fracture lines. Loss of reduction is relatively higher in MDJ fractures treated with classical supracondylar humerus fractures (SHFs) fixation techniques. Three different fracture patterns including transverse, medial oblique and lateral oblique fractures were computationally simulated in the coronal plane in the distal MDJ region of a pediatric humerus and fixated with Kirschner Wires (K-wires), elastic stable intramedullary nails (ESIN), and lateral external fixation system (EF). Stiffness values in flexion, extension, valgus, varus, internal, and external rotations for each fixation technique were calculated. In the transverse fracture model, 3C (1-medial, 2-lateral K-wires) had the best stiffness in flexion, varus, internal, and external rotations, while 3L (3-divergent lateral K-wires) was the most stable in extension and valgus. In the medial oblique fracture model, EF had the best stiffness in flexion, extension, valgus, and varus loadings, while the best stiffness in internal and external rotations was generated by 3MC (2-medial, 1-lateral K-wires). In the lateral oblique fracture model, 3C (1-medial, 2-lateral K-wires) had the best stiffness in flexion and internal and external rotations, while ESIN had the best stiffness in extension and valgus and varus loadings. The best stability against translational forces in lateral oblique, medial oblique, and transverse MDJ fractures would be provided by ESIN, EF, and K-wires, respectively. K-wires are however superior to both ESIN and EF in stabilizing all three fracture types against torsional forces, with both 2-crossed and 3-crossed K-wires having comparable stability. Depending on the fracture pattern, a 3-crossed configuration with either 2-divergent lateral and 1-medial K-wires or 2-medial and 1-lateral K-wires may offer the best stability.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Management of distal humerus metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction (MDJ) region fractures can be very challenging mainly because of the higher location and characteristics of the fracture lines. Loss of reduction is relatively higher in MDJ fractures treated with classical supracondylar humerus fractures (SHFs) fixation techniques.
METHODS
METHODS
Three different fracture patterns including transverse, medial oblique and lateral oblique fractures were computationally simulated in the coronal plane in the distal MDJ region of a pediatric humerus and fixated with Kirschner Wires (K-wires), elastic stable intramedullary nails (ESIN), and lateral external fixation system (EF). Stiffness values in flexion, extension, valgus, varus, internal, and external rotations for each fixation technique were calculated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In the transverse fracture model, 3C (1-medial, 2-lateral K-wires) had the best stiffness in flexion, varus, internal, and external rotations, while 3L (3-divergent lateral K-wires) was the most stable in extension and valgus. In the medial oblique fracture model, EF had the best stiffness in flexion, extension, valgus, and varus loadings, while the best stiffness in internal and external rotations was generated by 3MC (2-medial, 1-lateral K-wires). In the lateral oblique fracture model, 3C (1-medial, 2-lateral K-wires) had the best stiffness in flexion and internal and external rotations, while ESIN had the best stiffness in extension and valgus and varus loadings.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The best stability against translational forces in lateral oblique, medial oblique, and transverse MDJ fractures would be provided by ESIN, EF, and K-wires, respectively. K-wires are however superior to both ESIN and EF in stabilizing all three fracture types against torsional forces, with both 2-crossed and 3-crossed K-wires having comparable stability. Depending on the fracture pattern, a 3-crossed configuration with either 2-divergent lateral and 1-medial K-wires or 2-medial and 1-lateral K-wires may offer the best stability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32020882
doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-1564-4
pii: 10.1186/s13018-020-1564-4
pmc: PMC7001280
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
34Subventions
Organisme : The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
ID : N150308001
Références
J Pediatr Orthop. 2011 Jan-Feb;31(1):33-8
pubmed: 21150729
Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2017 Jan;51(1):34-38
pubmed: 27956078
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2012 Nov;21(6):499-504
pubmed: 22922405
J Pediatr Orthop. 2008 Mar;28(2):142-6
pubmed: 18388705
Malays Orthop J. 2016 Jul;10(2):41-46
pubmed: 28435560
J Child Orthop. 2013 Dec;7(6):565-9
pubmed: 24432122
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2017 Sep;99(7):524-528
pubmed: 28517958
J Pediatr Orthop. 2016 Dec;36(8):787-792
pubmed: 26090981
J Pediatr Orthop. 2014 Oct-Nov;34(7):691-7
pubmed: 24590332
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2012 Jul;21(4):300-4
pubmed: 22555378
J Pediatr Orthop. 2012 Mar;32(2):196-200
pubmed: 22327455
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Aug;90(8):1690-7
pubmed: 18676899
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2002;69(2):73-8
pubmed: 12073645
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2012 Nov;21(6):495-8
pubmed: 22735920
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2016 Feb;32:118-23
pubmed: 26743869
J Pediatr Orthop. 2002 Jul-Aug;22(4):440-3
pubmed: 12131437
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):713-7
pubmed: 17403791
Int Orthop. 2019 Feb;43(2):411-416
pubmed: 29744649
Technol Health Care. 2015;23(4):453-61
pubmed: 25735311
Accid Anal Prev. 2017 Jan;98:206-213
pubmed: 27760408
J Pediatr Orthop. 2008 Jul-Aug;28(5):493-9
pubmed: 18580360
J Pediatr Orthop. 2015 Sep;35(6):611-6
pubmed: 25379828