Skip to main content
Log in

Augmentationstechnik am proximalen Humerus

Augmentation technique on the proximal humerus

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Unfallchirurg Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund und Fragestellung

Die operative Versorgung einer Fraktur des osteoporotischen Knochens stellt einen hohen Anspruch an das Implantat und den Operateur. In diesem Artikel sollen anhand des proximalen Humerus der biomechanische Vorteil einer Augmentation und der klinische Einsatz einer zementaugmentierten Osteosynthese gezeigt werden.

Methodik

Am proximalen Humerus wurden 6 Paar humane Humeri in eine augmentierte und eine nichtaugmentierte Gruppe randomisiert. Anschließend erfolgte die Osteosynthese mit einer winkelstabilen Platte (PHILOS, Fa. Synthes®). In der augmentierten Gruppe wurden die 2 Schrauben, die in der schwächsten Spongiosa greifen, augmentiert. Anschließend erfolgte eine mechanische Testung anhand eines 3-Fragment-Frakturmodells.

Ergebnisse

Bei den augmentierten Platten war eine signifikant höhere Anzahl von Belastungszyklen bis zum mechanischen Versagen feststellbar. Die Korrelation mit der Knochendichte zeigte, dass die Augmentation in der Lage ist, die reduzierte Trabekeldichte teilweise zu kompensieren.

Diskussion

Die Augmentation der Schrauben am proximalen Humerus in einem 3-Fragment-Frakturmodell zeigt eine deutlich erhöhte Primärstabilität in der In-vitro-Testung. Die zielgerichtete Augmentation der 2 Schrauben in der schwächsten Spongiosa war nahezu gleichwertig mit der Augmentation der 4 proximalen Schrauben. Der klinische Einsatz ist einfach und auch minimal-invasiv möglich. Bei korrekter Anwendung lassen sich Komplikationen (insbesondere der Austritt von Zement in das Gelenk) vermeiden.

Abstract

Background and objectives

The treatment of osteoporotic fractures is still a challenge. The advantages of augmentation with respect to primary in vitro stability and the clinical use for the proximal humerus are presented in this article.

Material and methods

In this study six paired human humeri were randomized into an augmented and a non-augmented group. Osteosynthesis was performed with a PHILOS plate (Synthes®). In the augmented group the two screws finding purchase in the weakest cancellous bone were augmented. The specimens were tested in a 3-part fracture model in a varus bending test.

Results

The augmented PHILOS plates withstood significantly more load cycles until failure. The correlation to bone mineral density (BMD) showed that augmentation could partially compensate for low BMD.

Conclusion

The augmentation of the screws in locked plating in a proximal humerus fracture model is effective in improving the primary stability in a cyclic varus bending test. The targeted augmentation of two particular screws in a region of low bone quality within the humeral head was almost as effective as four screws with twice the amount of bone cement. Screw augmentation combined with a knowledge of the local bone quality could be more effective in enhancing the primary stability of a proximal humerus locking plate because the effect of augmentation can be exploited more effectively limiting it to the degree required. The technique of augmentation is simple and can be applied in open and minimally invasive procedures. When the correct procedure is used, complications (cement leakage into the joint) can be avoided.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb.6
Abb. 7
Abb. 8
Abb. 9
Abb. 10

Literatur

  1. Court-Brown CM, Caesar B (2006) Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review. Injury 37(8):691–697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hessmann MH, Hansen WSM, Krummenauer F, Pol TF, Rommens PM (2005) Locked plate fixation and intramedullary nailing for proximal humerus fractures: a biomechanical evaluation. J Trauma 58(6):1194–1201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Helmy N, Hintermann B (2006) New trends in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Clin Orthop 442:100–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vallier HA (2007) Treatment of proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma 21(7):469–476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wijgman AJ, Roolker W, Patt TW, Raaymakers ELFB, Marti RK (2002) Open reduction and internal fixation of three and four-part fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(11):1919–1925

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kwon BK, Goertzen DJ, O’Brien PJ, Broekhuyse HM, Oxland TR (2002) Biomechanical evaluation of proximal humeral fracture fixation supplemented with calcium phosphate cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(6):951–961

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Röderer G, Erhardt J, Graf M, Kinzl L, Gebhard F (2010) Clinical results for minimally invasive locked plating of proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma 24(7):400–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Röderer G, Erhardt J, Kuster M, Vegt P, Bahrs C, Kinzl L et al (2011) Second generation locked plating of proximal humerus fractures-a prospective multicentre observational study. Int Orthop 35(3):425–432

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Südkamp N, Bayer J, Hepp P, Voigt C, Oestern H, Kääb M et al (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(6):1320–1328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brunner F, Sommer C, Bahrs C, Heuwinkel R, Hafner C, Rillmann P et al (2009) Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures using a proximal humeral locked plate: a prospective multicenter analysis. J Orthop Trauma 23(3):163–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kammerlander C, Doshi H, Gebhard F, Scola A, Meier C, Linhart W et al (2014) Long-term results of the augmented PFNA: a prospective multicenter trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134(3):343–349

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kammerlander C, Gebhard F, Meier C, Lenich A, Linhart W, Clasbrummel B et al (2011) Standardised cement augmentation of the PFNA using a perforated blade: a new technique and preliminary clinical results. A prospective multicentre trial. Injury 42(12):1484–1490

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Egol KA, Sugi MT, Ong CC, Montero N, Davidovitch R, Zuckerman JD (2012) Fracture site augmentation with calcium phosphate cement reduces screw penetration after open reduction-internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21(6):741–748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tingart MJ, Lehtinen J, Zurakowski D, Warner JJP, Apreleva M (2006) Proximal humeral fractures: regional differences in bone mineral density of the humeral head affect the fixation strength of cancellous screws. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15(5):620–624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tingart MJ, Bouxsein ML, Zurakowski D, Warner JP, Apreleva M (2003) Three-dimensional distribution of bone density in the proximal humerus. Calcif Tissue Int 73(6):531–536

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Brianza S, Röderer G, Schiuma D, Schwyn R, Scola A, Gebhard F et al (2012) Where do locking screws purchase in the humeral head? Injury 43(6):850–855

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Röderer G, Brianza S, Schiuma D, Schwyn R, Scola A, Gueorguiev B et al (2013) Mechanical assessment of local bone quality to predict failure of locked plating in a proximal humerus fracture model. Orthopedics 36(9):e1134–e1140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Scola A, Gebhard F, Weckbach S, Dehner C, Schwyn R, Fliri L et al (2013) Mechanical quantification of local bone quality in the humeral head: a feasibility study. Open Orthop J 7:172–176

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Krappinger D, Roth T, Gschwentner M, Suckert A, Blauth M, Hengg C et al (2012) Preoperative assessment of the cancellous bone mineral density of the proximal humerus using CT data. Skeletal Radiol 41(3):299–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Unger S, Erhart S, Kralinger F, Blauth M, Schmoelz W (2012) The effect of in situ augmentation on implant anchorage in proximal humeral head fractures. Injury 43(10):1759–1763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brianza S, Plecko M, Gueorguiev B, Windolf M, Schwieger K (2010) Biomechanical evaluation of a new fixation technique for internal fixation of three-part proximal humerus fractures in a novel cadaveric model. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 25(9):886–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Windolf M, Muths R, Braunstein V, Gueorguiev B, Hänni M, Schwieger K (2009) Quantification of cancellous bone-compaction due to DHS Blade insertion and influence upon cut-out resistance. Clin Biomech Bristol Avon 24(1):53–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Röderer G, Abouelsoud M, Gebhard F, Böckers TM, Kinzl L (2007) Minimally invasive application of the non-contact-bridging (NCB) plate to the proximal humerus: an anatomical study. J Orthop Trauma 21(9):621–627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fliri L, Lenz M, Boger A, Windolf M (2012) Ex vivo evaluation of the polymerization temperatures during cement augmentation of proximal femoral nail antirotation blades. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 72(4):1098–1101

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Röderer G, Scola A, Schmölz W, Gebhard F, Windolf M, Hofmann-Fliri L (2013) Biomechanical in vitro assessment of screw augmentation in locked plating of proximal humerus fractures. Injury 44(10):1327–1332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Scola.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

A. Scola, F. Gebhard, G. Röderer geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Additional information

Redaktion

F. Gebhard, Ulm

D. Höntzsch, Tübingen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scola, A., Gebhard, F. & Röderer, G. Augmentationstechnik am proximalen Humerus. Unfallchirurg 118, 749–754 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-015-0061-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-015-0061-4

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation