Cow-hitch fixation in fracture hemiarthroplasty.

Cadaver study Cow Hitch Cerclage Greater tuberosity reattachment Hemiarthroplasty Lesser tuberosity reattachment Proximal humerus fracture

Journal

JSES international
ISSN: 2666-6383
Titre abrégé: JSES Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101763461

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Historique:
entrez: 12 11 2021
pubmed: 13 11 2021
medline: 13 11 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The treatment of complex proximal humerus fractures with hemiarthroplasty is associated with a high failure rate due to secondary displacement of the tuberosities. It was the aim of this in-vitro study to compare the mechanical stability of tuberosity reattachment obtained with the so-called "Cow-Hitch" (CH) cerclage compared with conventional tuberosity reattachment. A 4-part proximal humerus fracture was created in 10 fresh-frozen, human cadaveric shoulders. The greater and lesser tuberosity were reattached to the hemiarthroplasty stem with in total 4 CH Cerclages in the Cow-Hitch group. The conventional technique-recommended for the tested implant-was used in the control group using 6 sutures. A total of 5000 loading cycles with forces of 350N were applied, while motion (in mm) of the tuberosities was recorded in 3 directions (anteroposterior = AP, mediolateral = ML, inferosuperior = IS) with a telecentric camera. After 5000 loading cycles, the CH group showed less fragment displacement (AP: 2.3 ± 2.3 mm, ML: 1.8 ± 0.9 mm, IS: 1.3 ± 0.5 mm) than the conventional group (AP: 9.8 ± 12.3 mm, ML: 5.5 ± 5.6 mm, IS: 4.5 ± 4.7 mm). The differences were not statistically significant (AP: In-vitro, "Cow-Hitch" cerclage results in mean greater tuberosity displacements of 2 mm and reliably prevents displacements greater than 5 mm. In contrast, the conventional fixation technique yields unreliable, variable stability with low to complete displacement upon cyclical loading.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The treatment of complex proximal humerus fractures with hemiarthroplasty is associated with a high failure rate due to secondary displacement of the tuberosities. It was the aim of this in-vitro study to compare the mechanical stability of tuberosity reattachment obtained with the so-called "Cow-Hitch" (CH) cerclage compared with conventional tuberosity reattachment.
METHODS METHODS
A 4-part proximal humerus fracture was created in 10 fresh-frozen, human cadaveric shoulders. The greater and lesser tuberosity were reattached to the hemiarthroplasty stem with in total 4 CH Cerclages in the Cow-Hitch group. The conventional technique-recommended for the tested implant-was used in the control group using 6 sutures. A total of 5000 loading cycles with forces of 350N were applied, while motion (in mm) of the tuberosities was recorded in 3 directions (anteroposterior = AP, mediolateral = ML, inferosuperior = IS) with a telecentric camera.
RESULTS RESULTS
After 5000 loading cycles, the CH group showed less fragment displacement (AP: 2.3 ± 2.3 mm, ML: 1.8 ± 0.9 mm, IS: 1.3 ± 0.5 mm) than the conventional group (AP: 9.8 ± 12.3 mm, ML: 5.5 ± 5.6 mm, IS: 4.5 ± 4.7 mm). The differences were not statistically significant (AP:
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
In-vitro, "Cow-Hitch" cerclage results in mean greater tuberosity displacements of 2 mm and reliably prevents displacements greater than 5 mm. In contrast, the conventional fixation technique yields unreliable, variable stability with low to complete displacement upon cyclical loading.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34766080
doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2021.07.011
pii: S2666-6383(21)00197-3
pmc: PMC8568993
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

1027-1033

Informations de copyright

© 2021 The Authors.

Références

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Jul;470(7):2035-42
pubmed: 22161081
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Oct;23(10):1568-74
pubmed: 24810079
Orthopedics. 2012 May;35(5):e703-8
pubmed: 22588413
J Orthop Sci. 2011 Sep;16(5):565-72
pubmed: 21750990
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Jun;28(6):1022-1032
pubmed: 31003888
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004 Mar-Apr;13(2):239-47
pubmed: 14997108
JSES Int. 2020 Dec 14;5(2):270-276
pubmed: 33681848
J Orthop Trauma. 2009 Feb;23(2):113-9
pubmed: 19169103
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Sep-Oct;11(5):401-12
pubmed: 12378157
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 11;(11):CD000434
pubmed: 26560014
Med Eng Phys. 1995 Jul;17(5):347-55
pubmed: 7670694
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Oct;23(10):1419-26
pubmed: 25086490
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Oct;25(10):1690-8
pubmed: 27090009
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Mar 18;102(6):477-485
pubmed: 31977825
Med Biol Eng Comput. 2009 May;47(5):515-22
pubmed: 19408030
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006 Nov-Dec;15(6):675-8
pubmed: 17055748
Orthopedics. 2012 Sep;35(9):e1340-6
pubmed: 22955399

Auteurs

Florian Grubhofer (F)

Balgrist University Hospital, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Lukas Ernstbrunner (L)

Balgrist University Hospital, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Elias Bachmann (E)

Balgrist University Hospital, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Karl Wieser (K)

Balgrist University Hospital, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Paul Borbas (P)

Balgrist University Hospital, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Samy Bouaicha (S)

Balgrist University Hospital, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Jon J P Warner (JJP)

Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Christian Gerber (C)

Balgrist University Hospital, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH