Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Monoaxial versus polyaxial locking systems: a biomechanical analysis of different locking systems for the fixation of proximal humeral fractures

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The development of locking plate systems has led to polyaxial screws and new plate designs. This study compares monoaxial head locking screws (PHILOS© by Synthes) and a new generation of polyaxial locking screws (NCB-LE© by Zimmer) with respect to biomechanical stability.

Methods

On nine pairs of randomised formalin fixed humerus specimens, standardised osteotomies and osteosyntheses with nine monoaxial (group A) und nine polyaxial (group B) plate/screw systems were performed. A material testing machine by Instron (M-10 14961-DE) was used for cyclic stress tests and crash tests until defined breakup criteria as endpoints were reached.

Results

After axial cyclic stress 200 times at 90 N, plastic deformation was 1.02 mm in group A and 1.25 mm in group B. After the next cycle using 180 N the additional deformation averaged 0.23 mm in group A and 0.39 mm in group B. The deformation using 450 N was 0.72 mm in group A compared to 0.92 mm in group B. The final full power test resulted in a deformation average of 0.49 mm in group A and 0.63 mm in group B after 2,000 cycles using 450 N. When reaching the breakup criteria the plastic deformation of the NCB plate was 9.04 mm on average. The PHILOS plate was similarly deformed by 9.00 mm.

As a result of the crash test, in group A the screws pulled out of the humeral head four times whereas the shaft broke one time and another time the implant was ripped out. The gap was closed four times. In group B, there were three cases of screw cut-through, four shaft fractures/screw avulsions from the shaft and two cases of gap closure.

Conclusion

The two systems resist the cyclic duration tests and the increasing force tests in a similar manner. The considerable clinical benefits of the polyaxial system are enhanced by equal biomechanical performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blum J, Hansen M, Rommens P (2009) Die winkelstabile Marknagelung bei Frakturen am proximalen Humerus mit dem PHN (Proximaler Humerusnagel). Oper Orthop Traumatol 21:296–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Erhardt J, Roderer G, Grob K, Forster T, Stoffel K, Kuster M (2009) Early results in the treatment of proximal humeral fractures with a polyaxial locking plate. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129:1367–1374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hessler C, Schmucker U, Matthes G, Ekkernkamp A, Gütschow R, Eggers C (2006) Ergebnisse nach Versorgung instabiler proximalerHumerusfrakturen mittels winkelstabiler Platte. Unfallchirurg 109:867–874

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hessmann M, Rommens P (2001) Osteosynthesetechniken bei proximalen Humerusfrakturen. Chirurg 72:1235–1245

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hessmann M, Sternstein W, Mehler D, Korner J, Hofmann A, Rommens P (2004) Sind winkelstabile Plattensysteme mit elastischen Eigenschaften fürdie Stabilisierung der Oberarmkopffraktur vorteilhaft? Biomed Technik 49:345–350

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hessmann M, Sternstein W, Krummenauer F, Hofmann A, Rommens P (2004) Osteosynthese von Oberarmkopffrakturen—Einfluss desImplantatdesigns auf die biomechanische Stabilität. Chirurg 75:167–174

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kettler M, Braunstein V, Biberthaler P, Krammer M, Mutschler W (2007) Komplikationen winkelstabiler Plattenosteosynthesen am Humeruskopf—Darstellung und Management. Trauma Berufskrankh 9:48–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lever J, Aksenov S, Zdero R, Ahn H, McKee M, Schemtisch E (2008) Biomechanical analysis of plate osteosynthesis systems for proxima humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma 22:23–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lill H, Josten C (2001) Konservative oder operative Versorgung derHumeruskopffraktur beim alten Menschen? Chirurg 72:1224–1234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lohmann R, Haid K, Stöckle U, Raschke M (2007) Epidemiologie und Perspektiven der Alterstraumatologie. Unfallchirurg 110:553–562

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Maurer J, Rüter A (2004) Winkelstabile Plattenosteosynthese amproximalen Humerus—Ein klinischer Vergleich von etablierten und neuenVerfahren. Trauma Berufskrankh 6:247–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Röderer G, Gebhartd F, Erhardt J, Al-Agha S, AbouElsoud M, Kinzl L (2007) Die non-contact-bridging(NCB)-Platte. Unfallchirurg 110:505–512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Röderer G, AbouElsoud M, Gebhard F, Claes L, Aschoff A, Kinzl L (2010) Biomechanische Untersuchungen der winkelstabilen Plattenosteosyntheseam proximalen Humerus. Unfallchirurg 113:133–138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Strohm P, Köstler W, Südkamp N (2008) Proximale Humerusfrakturen—was sollen wir tun? Z Orthop Unfall 146:312–317

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Südkamp N (2004) Erste Erfahrungen mit winkelstabilen Implantaten –obere Extremität: subcapitale Humerusfrakturen. Trauma Berufskrankh 6:13–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Südkamp N, Bayer J, Hepp P, Voigt C, Oestern H, Kääb M, Luo C, Plecko M, Wendt K, Köstler W, Konrad G (2009) Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with use of the locking proximal humerus plate. Results of a prospective, multicenter, observational study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:1320–1328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Virkus W, Goldberg S, Lorenz E (2008) A comparison of compressive force generation by plating and intramedullary nailing techniques in a transverse diaphysial humerus fracture model. J Trauma 65:103–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Voigt C, Woltmann A, Lill H (2007) Komplikationsmanagement nach winkelstabiler Plattenosteosynthese am proximalen Humerus. Chirurg 78:40–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Voigt C, Lill H (2007) Versorgung proximaler Humerusfrakturen—Fortschritte in der Plattenosteosynthese. Trauma Berufskrankh 9:43–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wilkens K, Curtiss S, Lee M (2008) Polyaxial locking plate fixation in distal femur fractures: a biomechanical comparison. J Orthop Trauma 22:624–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wingerter S, Calvert G, Tucci M, Benghuzzi H, Russel G, Puckett A (2006) Mechanical strength repercussions of various fixative storage methods on bone. Biomed Sci Instrum 42:290–295

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zech S, Goesling T, Hankemeier S, Knobloch K, Geerling J, Schultz-Brunn K, Krettek C, Richter M (2006) Differences in the mechanical properties of calcaneal artificial specimens, fresh frozen specimens and embalmed specimens differ in experimental testing. Foot Ankle Int 27(12):1126–1136

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma-, Hand- and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg GmbH, Baldingerstraße, 35041, Marburg, Germany

    Ralph Zettl, Thorben Müller, Tobias Topp, Ulrike Lewan, Antonio Krüger, Christian Kühne & Steffen Ruchholtz

Authors
  1. Ralph Zettl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thorben Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tobias Topp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ulrike Lewan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Antonio Krüger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christian Kühne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Steffen Ruchholtz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralph Zettl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zettl, R., Müller, T., Topp, T. et al. Monoaxial versus polyaxial locking systems: a biomechanical analysis of different locking systems for the fixation of proximal humeral fractures. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 35, 1245–1250 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1220-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1220-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation