Advertisement

Anatomical Considerations and Biomechanics in Distal Humeral Hemiarthroplasty: Are Custom-Made Implants Essential?

  • D. Polimanti
  • M. Scacchi
  • G. Giannicola
Chapter

Abstract

Distal humerus hemiarthroplasty is a somewhat debated and relatively new therapeutic option for distal humerus fractures, their sequelae, and other humeral degenerative conditions associated with a preserved radioulnar compartment. The anatomical variability of the distal humerus is the main issue that remains to be solved, particularly in view of the limited modularity of the only implant currently available. The clinical relevance of the mismatch between the native joint and the replacement joint has yet to be clearly demonstrated in the long term, though biomechanical studies have highlighted marked ulnar cartilage wear associated with such implants. Clinical studies are needed to understand whether custom-made implants can improve the results yielded by the implant available at present.

Keywords

Elbow arthroplasty Distal humerus hemiarthroplasty Elbow anatomy Elbow biomechanics 

References

  1. 1.
    Smith GC, Hughes JS. Unreconstructable acute distal humeral fractures and their sequelae treated with distal humeral hemiarthroplasty: a two-year to eleven-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2013;22:1710–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giannicola G, Sacchetti FM, Polimanti D, Bullitta G, Scacchi M, Sedati P. Elbow joint. In: Bergman’s comprehensive Encyclopedia of human anatomic variation. 1st ed: John Wiley & Sons; 2016. p. 130–57.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morrey BF. Anatomy of the elbow joint. In: Morreys the elbow and its disorders. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2008. p. 11–38.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McDonald CP, Peters TM, Johnson JA, King GJ. Stem abutment affects alignment of the humeral component in computer-assisted elbow arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20(6):891–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2010.12.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brownhill JR, King GJ, Johnson JA. Morphologic analysis of the distal humerus with special interest in elbow implant sizing and alignment. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2007;16(3):S126–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2006.01.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dunn J, Kusnezov N, Pirela-Cruz M. Distal humeral hemiarthroplasty: indications, results, and complications. A systematic review. Hand. 2014;9(4):406–12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11552-014-9681-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Phadnis J, Watts AC, Bain GI. Elbow hemiarthroplasty for the management of distal humeral fractures: current technique, indications and results. Shoulder Elbow. 2016;8(3):171–83.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1758573216640210.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McDonald CP, Brownhill J, King GJ, Peters TM, Johnson JA Surface morphology of the capitellum: implications for computer-assisted surgery. 52nd Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society 2006; Paper No 1936.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sabo MT, Mcdonald CP, Ng J, Ferreira LM, Johnson JA, King GJ. A morphological analysis of the humeral capitellum with an interest in prosthesis design. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20(6):880–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2011.01.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldfarb CA, Patterson JMM, Sutter M, Krauss M, Steffen JA, Galatz L. Elbow radiographic anatomy: measurement techniques and normative data. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2012;21(9):1236–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2011.10.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giannicola G, Scacchi M, Sedati P, Gumina S. Anatomical variations of the trochlear notch angle: MRI analysis of 78 elbows. Musculoskelet Surg. 2016;100(S1):89–95.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-016-0407-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giannicola G, Spinello P, Scacchi M, Gumina S. Cartilage thickness of distal humerus and its relationships with bone dimensions: magnetic resonance imaging bilateral study in healthy elbows. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2017;26(5):e128–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.10.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lapner M, Willing R, Johnson JA, King GJ. The effect of distal humeral hemiarthroplasty on articular contact of the elbow. Clin Biomech. 2014;29(5):537–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.03.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Willing R, Lapner M, King GJ, Johnson JA. In vitro assessment of the contact mechanics of reverse-engineered distal humeral hemiarthroplasty prostheses. Clin Biomech. 2014;29(9):990–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.08.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Willing R, King GJ, Johnson JA. Contact mechanics of reverse engineered distal humeral hemiarthroplasty implants. J Biomech. 2015;48(15):4037–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.09.047.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abhari RE, Willing R, King GJW, Johnson JA. An in vitro study of the role of implant positioning on ulnohumeral articular contact in distal humeral hemiarthroplasty. J Hand Surg Am. 2017;42(8):602–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.03.034.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Polimanti
    • 1
  • M. Scacchi
    • 2
  • G. Giannicola
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyOspedale Sandro PertiniRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic Medicine and Orthopaedics Sciences“Sapienza” University of Rome—Policlinico Umberto IRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations