Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biomechanical study of different plate configurations for distal humerus osteosynthesis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fractures of the distal humerus are most commonly fixed by open reduction and internal fixation, using plates and screws, either in a locking or in a non-locking construct. Three different plating systems are commonly used in practice. The most important differences between them are in plate orientation, which affects both the rigidity of the osteosynthesis and invasiveness of the surgical procedure. Unfortunately, there is no common agreement between surgeons about which plate configuration brings the best clinical outcome. In this study, we investigate the theoretical rigidity of plate osteosyntheses considering two types of AO/ASIF configurations (90° angle between plates), Mayo clinic (Acumed) configuration (180° between plates) and dorsal fixation of both plates. We also compared the results for cases with and without contact between the bone fragments. In the case of no bone contact, the Mayo clinic plate configuration is found to be the most rigid, followed by both AO/ASIF plate configurations, and the least rigid system is the Korosec plate configuration. On the other hand, no significant differences between all types of fixation configurations are found in cases with contact in-between the bone fragments. Our findings show that this contact is very important and can compensate for the lack of load carrying capacity of the implants. This could therefore incite other implant fixation solutions, leading to less invasive surgical procedures and consequently improved clinical outcome.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baumgartner D, Lorenzetti SR, Mathys R, Gasser B, Stüssi E (2009) Refixation stability in shoulder hemiarthroplasty in case of four-part proximal humeral fracture. Med Biol Eng Comput 47:515–522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bolsterlee B, Veeger HEJ, Chadwick EK (2013) Clinical applications of musculoskeletal modelling for the shoulder and upper limb. Med Biol Eng Comp 51:953–963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bottlang M, Doornink J, Lujan TJ, Fitzpatrick DC, Marsh JL, Augat P, von Rechenberg B, Lesser M, Madey SM (2010) Effects of construct stiffness on healing of fractures stabilized with locking plates. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:12–22

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Carpenter JE, Wening JD, Mell AG, Langenderfer JE, Kuhn JE, Hughes RE (2005) Changes in the long head of the biceps tendon in rotator cuff tear shoulders. Clin Biomech 20:162–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheng HYK, Lin CL, Lin YH, Chen ACY (2007) Biomechanical evaluation of the modified double-plating fixation for the distal radius fracture. Clin Biomech 22:510–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dunham CE, Takaki SE, Johnson JA, Dunning CE (2005) Mechanical properties of cancellous bone of the distal humerus. Clin Biomech 20:834–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ethier CR, Simmons CA (2007) Introductory biomechanics: from cells to organisms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Floyd RT, Thomson CW (1998) Manual of structural kinesiology. WBC/McFraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gefen A (2002) Computational simulations of stress shielding and bone resorption around existing and computer-designed orthopaedic screws. Med Biol Eng Comput 40:311–322

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Greco GD, de Las Casas EB, Cornacchia TPM, de Magalhaes CS, Moreira AN (2012) Standard disocclusion in complete dentures supported by implants without free distal ends: analysis by the finite elements method. J Appl Oral Sci 20:64–69

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hamill J, Knutzen KM (2009) Biomechanical basis of human movement. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  12. Huston RL (2009) Principles of biomechanics. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  13. Korner J, Lill H, Müller LP, Rommens PM, Schneider E, Linke B (2003) The LCP-concept in the operative treatment of distal humerus fractures—biological, biomechanical and surgical aspects. Injury 34:S-B20–S-B30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Korner J, Diederichs G, Arzdorf M, Lill H, Josten C, Schneider E, Linke B (2004) A biomechanical evaluation of methods of distal humerus fracture fixation using locking compression plates versus conventional reconstruction plates. J Orthop Trauma 18:286–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Krkovic M, Bosnjak R (2008) Subperiosteal elevation of the ulnar nerve: anatomical considerations and preliminary results. Injury 39:761–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Krkovic M, Kordas M, Tonin M, Bosnjak R (2006) Subperiosteal elevation of the ulnar nerve during internal fixation for fractures of the distal humerus assessed by intra-operative neurophysiological monitoring. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(2):220–226

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lovard ST, Wagner JD, Baack B (2009) Biomechanical optimization of bone plates used in rigid fixation of mandibular fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 67:973–985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. MacLeod AR, Pankaj P, Simpson AHRW (2012) Does screw-bone interface modelling matter in finite element analysis? J Biomech 45:1712–1716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. McGough RL, Debski RE, Taskiran E, Fu FH, Woo SLY (1996) Mechanical properties of the long head of the biceps tendon. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 3:226–229

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Netter FH (2005) Atlas of Human Anatomy. Data status, Ljubljana [publication in Slovene]

  21. Nigg BM, Herzog W (1994) Biomechanics of the musculo-skeletal system. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nikooyan AA, Veeger HEJ, Chadwick EKJ, Praagmann M, van der Helm FCT (2011) Development of a comprehensive musculoskeletal model of the shoulder and elbow. Med Biol Eng Comput 49:1425–1435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. O’Driscoll SW (2005) Optimizing stability in distal humeral fracture fixation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14:S186–S194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Penzkofer R, Hungerer S, Wipf F, von Oldenburg G, Augat P (2010) Anatomical plate configuration affects mechanical performance in distal humerus fractures. Clin Biomech 25:972–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Schwarz A, Oka R, Odell T, Mahar A (2006) Biomechanical comparison of two different periarticular plating systems for stabilization of complex distal humerus fractures. Clin Biomech 21:950–955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Shin SJ, Sohn HS, Do NH (2010) A clinical comparison of two different double plating methods for intraarticular distal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19:2–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tai CL, Chen WP, Chen HH, Lin CY, Lee MS (2009) Biomechanical optimisation of different fixation modes for a proximal femoral L-osteotomy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 10:112

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vandenbulcke F, Rahmoun J, Morvan H, Naceur H, Drazetic P, Fontaine C, Bry R (2012) On the mechanical characterization of human humerus using multi‐scale continuum finite element model. In: 2012 IRCOBI conference, Dublin 2012, pp 598–610

  29. Vandenbulcke F, Rahmoun J, Naceur H, Morvan H, Drazetic P, Fontaine C (2013) Multiscale modelling of the mechanical behaviour of human humerus under impact. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 16(Suppl 1):211–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wieding J, Souffrant R, Fritsche A, Mittelmeier W, Bader R (2012) Finite element analysis of osteosynthesis screw fixation in the bone stock: an appropriate method for automatic screw modelling. PLoS One 7(3):e33776

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zalavras CG, Vercillio MT, Jun BJ, Otarodifard K, Itamura JM, Lee TQ (2011) Biomechanical evaluation of parallel versus orthogonal plate fixation of intra-articular distal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 20:12–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory for Nonlinear Mechanics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Askerceva 6, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    M. Bogataj, F. Kosel & M. Brojan

  2. University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK

    R. Norris

  3. Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK

    M. Krkovic

Authors
  1. M. Bogataj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Kosel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Norris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Krkovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Brojan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Brojan.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 2911 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bogataj, M., Kosel, F., Norris, R. et al. Biomechanical study of different plate configurations for distal humerus osteosynthesis. Med Biol Eng Comput 53, 381–392 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-015-1247-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-015-1247-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation