Two-part surgical neck fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. A biomechanical evaluation of two fixation techniques.

BACKGROUND Successful internal fixation of fractures of the surgical neck of the humerus can be difficult to achieve because of osteopenia of the proximal aspect of the humerus. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical stability of a proximal humeral intramedullary nail and a locking plate for the treatment of a comminuted two-part fracture of the surgical neck in a human cadaver model. METHODS Twenty-four cadaveric humeri were instrumented with use of either a titanium proximal humeral nail (PHN) or a 3.5-mm locking compression plate for the proximal part of the humerus (LCP-PH). The specimens were matched by bone mineral density and were separated into four experimental groups with six humeri in each: PHN bending, LCP-PH bending, PHN torsion, or LCP-PH torsion. Comminuted fractures of the surgical neck were simulated by excising a 10-mm wedge of bone. Bending specimens were cyclically loaded from 0 to 7.5 Nm of varus bending moment at the fracture site. Torsion specimens were cyclically loaded to +/-2 Nm of axial torque. The mean and maximum displacement in bending, mean and maximum angular rotation in torsion, and stiffness of the bone-implant constructs were compared. RESULTS In bending, the LCP-PH group demonstrated significantly less mean displacement of the distal fragment than did the PHN group over 5000 cycles (p = 0.002). In torsion, the LCP-PH group demonstrated significantly less mean angular rotation than did the PHN group over 5000 cycles (p = 0.04). A significant number of specimens in the PHN group failed prior to reaching 5000 cycles (p = 0.04). The LCP-PH implant created a significantly stiffer bone-implant construct than did the PHN implant (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS The LCP proximal humeral plate demonstrated superior biomechanical characteristics compared with the proximal humeral nail when tested cyclically in both cantilevered varus bending and torsion. The rate of early failure of the proximal humeral nail could reflect the high moment transmitted to the locking proximal screw-bone interface in this implant. CLINICAL RELEVANCE The high failure rate in torsion of the proximal humeral nail-bone construct is concerning, and, with relatively osteoporotic bone and early motion, the results could be poor.

[1]  A Heinonen,et al.  Effect of Long‐Term Unilateral Activity on Bone Mineral Density of Female Junior Tennis Players , 1998, Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

[2]  M. Swiontkowski,et al.  Torsion and bending analysis of internal fixation techniques for femoral neck fractures: The role of implant design and bone density , 1987, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[3]  D. Zurakowski,et al.  The cortical thickness of the proximal humeral diaphysis predicts bone mineral density of the proximal humerus. , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[4]  R. Klesges,et al.  Side‐To‐Side Comparisons of Bone Mineral Density in Upper and Lower Limbs of Collegiate Athletes , 2002, Journal of strength and conditioning research.

[5]  K. Strømsøe,et al.  Fracture fixation problems in osteoporosis. , 2004, Injury.

[6]  J. Iannotti,et al.  Nonprosthetic management of proximal humeral fractures. , 2003, Instructional course lectures.

[7]  R. Keller,et al.  Basic Epidemiology of Fractures of the Upper and Lower Limb among Americans over 65 Years of Age , 1996, Epidemiology.

[8]  M. Colville,et al.  Biomechanical comparison of intramedullary and percutaneous pin fixation for proximal humeral fracture fixation. , 1997, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[9]  C. Court-Brown,et al.  The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures , 2001, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[10]  F. Haddad,et al.  Dall-Miles plates for periprosthetic femoral fractures. A critical review of 16 cases. , 2004, Injury.

[11]  R. Hawkins,et al.  Displaced Proximal Humeral Fractures: Evaluation and Treatment , 1994, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[12]  R. Lorentzon,et al.  Bone Mass in Female Cross-Country Skiers: Relationship Between Muscle Strength and Different BMD Sites , 2000, Calcified Tissue International.

[13]  R. Hawkins,et al.  The three-part fracture of the proximal part of the humerus. Operative treatment. , 1986, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[14]  Steven C. Chudik,et al.  Fixed-angle plate fixation in simulated fractures of the proximal humerus: a biomechanical study of a new device. , 2003, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[15]  G. Duda,et al.  Proximal humeral fractures: how stiff should an implant be? , 2003, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[16]  R. Szabo,et al.  Semitubular Blade Plate for Fixation in the Proximal Humerus , 1988, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.