Skip to main content
Log in

Biomechanical evaluation of metacarpal fracture fixation: application of a 90° internal fixation model

  • Published:
HAND

Abstract

Purpose

Complications in metacarpal fracture treatment increase in proportion to the severity of the initial injury and the invasiveness of the surgical fixation technique. This manuscript evaluates the feasibility of minimizing internal fixation construct size and soft tissue dissection, while preserving the advantages of stable internal fixation in a biomechanical model. We hypothesized that comparable construct stability could be achieved with mini-plates in an orthogonal (90/90) configuration compared with a standard dorsal plating technique.

Methods

This hypothesis was evaluated in a transverse metacarpal fracture model. Twelve metacarpals were subject to either placement of a 2.0-mm six-hole dorsal plate or two 1.5-mm four-hole mini-plates in a 90/90 configuration. These constructs were tested to failure in a three-point bending apparatus, attaining failure force, displacement, and stiffness.

Results

Mean failure force was 353.5 ± 121.1 N for the dorsal plating construct and 358.8 ± 77.1 N for the orthogonal construct. Mean failure displacement was 3.3 ± 1.2 mm for the dorsal plating construct and 4.1 ± 0.9 mm for the orthogonal construct. Mean stiffness was 161.3 ± 50.0 N/mm for the dorsal plating construct and 122.1 ± 46.6 N/mm for the orthogonal construct. Mean failure moment was 3.09 ± 1.06 Nm for the dorsal plating construct and 3.14 ± 0.67 Nm for the orthogonal construct. The dorsal plating group failed via screw pullout, whereas the orthogonal failed either by screw pullout or breakage of the plate.

Conclusions

When subject to apex dorsal bending, the orthogonal construct and the standard dorsal plate construct behaved comparably. These data suggest that despite its shorter length, lower profile, and less substantial screws, the orthogonal construct provides sufficient rigidity.

Clinical Relevance

This study represents a “proof of concept” regarding the applicability of orthogonal plating in the metacarpal and provides the foundation for minimizing construct size and profile.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bach HG, Gonzalez MH, Hall Jr RF. Locked intramedullary nailing of metacarpal fractures secondary to gunshot wounds. J Hand Surg. 2006;31A:1083–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chung KC, Spilson SV. The frequency and epidemiology of hand and forearm fractures in the United States. J Hand Surg. 2001;26A:908–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dabezies EJ, Schutte JP. Fixation of metacarpal and phalangeal fractures with miniature plates and screws. J Hand Surg. 1986;11A:283–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dona E, Gillie RM, Gianoutsos MP, Walsh WR. Plating of metacarpal fractures: unicortical or bicortical screws? J Hand Surg. 2004;29B:218–21.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fambrough RA, Green DP. Tendon rupture as a complication of screw fixation in fractures in the hand: a case report. J Bone Joint Surg. 1979;61A:781–2.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Firoozbakhsh KK, Moneim MS, Howey T, Castaneda E, Pirela-Cruz MA. Comparative fatigue strengths and stabilities of metacarpal internal fixation techniques. J Hand Surg. 1993;18A:1059–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fischer KJ, Bastidas JA, Provenzano DA, Tomaino MM. Low-profile versus conventional metacarpal plating systems: a comparison of construct stiffness and strength. J Hand Surg. 1999;24A:928–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ford DJ, el-Hadidi S, Lunn PG, Burke FD. Fractures of the metacarpals: treatment by AO screw and plate fixation. J Hand Surg. 1987; 12B: 34–37

  9. Freeland AE, Orbay JL. Extraarticular hand fractures in adults: a review of new developments. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;445:133–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gajendran VK, Szabo RM, Myo GK, Curtiss SB. Biomechanical comparison of double-row locking plates versus single- and double-row non-locking plates in a comminuted metacarpal fracture model. J Hand Surg. 2009;34A:1851–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gonzalez MH, Ingram CM, Hall Jr RF. Flexible intramedullary nailing for metacarpal fractures. J Hand Surg. 1995;20A:382–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Green A. Open reduction and internal fixation with 90-90 plating of bicolumn distal humerus fractures. Instr Course Lectures. 2009;58:515–9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Helmerhorst GT, Kloen P. Orthogonal plating of intra-articular distal radius fractures with an associated radial column fracture via a single volar approach. Injury. 2012;43(8):1307–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kawamura K, Chung KC. Fixation choices for closed simple unstable oblique phalangeal and metacarpal fractures. Hand Clin. 2006;22:287–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kozin SH, THoder JJ, Lieberman G. Operative treatment of metacarpal and phalangeal shaft fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000;8:111–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Orbay J. Intramedullary nailing of metacarpal shaft fractures. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg. 2005;9:69–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ozer K, Gillani S, Williams A, Peterson SL, Morgan S. Comparison of intramedullary nailing versus plate and screw fixation of extra-articular metacarpal fractures. J Hand Surg. 2008;33A:1724–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Page SM, Stern PJ. Complications and range of motion following plate fixation of metacarpal and phalangeal fractures. J Hand Surg. 1998;23A:827–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Prevel CD, McCarty M, Katona T, Moore K, Jackson JR, Eppley BL, et al. Comparative biomechanical stability of titanium bone fixation systems in metacarpal fractures. Ann Plast Surg. 1995;35:6–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shin SJ, Sohn HS, Do NH. A clinical comparison of two different double plating methods for intra-articular distal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(1):2–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sletten IN, Nordsletten L, Husby T, Odegaard RA, Hellund JC, Kvernmo HD. Isolated, extra-articular neck and shaft fractures of the 4th and 5th metacarpals: a comparison of transverse and bouquet (intra-medullary) pinning in 67 patients. J Hand Surg (Eur). 2012;37:387–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sohn RC, Jahng KH, Curtiss AS, Szabo RM. Comparison of metacarpal plating methods. J Hand Surg. 2008;33A:316–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stern PJ, Wieser MJ, Reilly DG. Complications of plate fixation in the hand skeleton. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;214:59–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vanik RK, Weber RC, Matloub HS, Sanger JR, Gingrass RP. The comparative strengths of internal fixation techniques. J Hand Surg. 1984;9A:216–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vennetilli M, Athwal GS. Parallel versus orthogonal plating for distal humerus fractures. J Hand Surg. 2012;37A:819–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Waris E, Ashammakhi N, Raatikainen T, Tormala P, Santavirta S, Konttinen YT. Self-reinforced bioabsorbable versus metallic fixation systems for metacarpal and phalangeal fractures: a biomechanical study. J Hand Surg. 2002;27A:902–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zalavras CG, Vercillo MT, Jun BJ, Otarodifard K, Itamura JM, Lee TQ. Biomechanical evaluation of parallel versus orthogonal plate fixation of intra-articular distal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):12–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

Andrew J. Watt, Randal P. Ching, and Jerry I. Huang have no personal relationship or financial interests to disclose.

Statement of Human and Animal Rights

This study was conducted with approval from the Institutional Review Board. All tissues were treated and handled in accordance with Institutional Review Board recommendations for the handling of cadaveric subjects.

Statement of Informed Consent

This study is a biomechanical, cadaveric study; therefore, no informed consent was obtained. All tissues were treated and handled in accordance with Institutional Review Board recommendations for the handling of cadaveric subjects.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew J. Watt.

Additional information

Therapeutic level: V

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Watt, A.J., Ching, R.P. & Huang, J.I. Biomechanical evaluation of metacarpal fracture fixation: application of a 90° internal fixation model. HAND 10, 94–99 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11552-014-9673-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11552-014-9673-3

Keywords

Navigation