Nailing of proximal ulna fractures: biomechanical comparison of a new locked nail with angular stable plating
- 11 Downloads
Proximal ulna fractures are common injuries and frequently treated with angular stable plating. This surgical option shows good functional results. Relevant drawbacks such as large soft tissue exposure, compromised blood supply of fracture fragments and disturbing osteosynthetic material are described. The aim of this study was to compare a new locked proximal ulna nail with angular stable plating in a biomechanical testing setup for extraarticular proximal ulna fractures.
Ten pairs of sawbones with a Jupiter type IIB proximal ulna fracture (OTA 2U1A3.1) were tested after osteosynthesis with the mentioned implants in a servo-pneumatic testing machine. The testing setup simulates physiological joint motion (0°–90°) under cyclic loading (30–300 N). Primary stability and loosening of both constructs were quantified using micromotion video-analysis after 608 test cycles.
The micromotion analysis showed significantly higher primary stability of the locked nail (0.29 ± 0.13 mm) compared to the angular stable plate (0.97 ± 0.30 mm, p < 0.001). Both implants showed a low amount of loosening after completion of the test cycles. The construct with the locked nail (0.08 ± 0.06 mm) showed significantly lower dislocation of the fragments measured at the anterior cortex (plate 0.24 ± 0.13 mm, p < 0.001).
Nailing of proximal ulna fractures shows significantly higher primary stability and lower loosening compared to angular stable plating in our testing setup.
KeywordsProximal ulna fractures Nailing Biomechanical testing
MEDIN s. a. provided all implants for this study. Besides this non-financial support, no other condition that presents a potential conflict of interest exists.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All the authors state that they have no other conflict of interest.
- 1.German Federal Statistical Office. Diagnostic data for proximal ulna fractures in Germany (inpatient treatment). 2018 [cited 2018 Sep 11]. http://www.gbe-bund.de/oowa921-install/servlet/oowa/aw92/dboowasys921.xwdevkit/xwd_init?gbe.isgbetol/xs_start_neu/&p_aid=3&p_aid=59570519&nummer=550&p_sprache=D&p_indsp=522&p_aid=17398533.
- 22.Nicol A, Berme M, Paul J. A biomechanical analysis of elbow joint function. Joint replacement in the upper limb. London: Institution of Mechanical Engineers; 1977. p. 45–51.Google Scholar
- 27.Nowak TE, Mueller LP, Burkhart KJ, Sternstein W, Reuter M, Rommens PM. Dynamic biomechanical analysis of different olecranon fracture fixation devices–tension band wiring versus two intramedullary nail systems: an in-vitro cadaveric study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2007;22:658–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar