Advertisement

Frakturbiologie und -morphologie

  • Mark Tauber
  • Herbert Resch
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Im Rahmen der Frakturheilung nehmen in erster Linie biologische Faktoren eine zentrale Rolle ein. Dies gilt sowohl für die konservative als auch für die operative Frakturbehandlung. Bei der operativen Versorgung gewinnen zusätzlich mechanische und implantatspezifische Faktoren an Bedeutung. Aus biologischer Sicht ist die Vaskularität prioritär zu betrachten. Knochenbruchheilung setzt eine suffiziente Durchblutung der Fragmente voraus. Demineralisierung mit Remodeling von kortikalem und spongiösem Knochengewebe, fibroblastische Organisation des Frakturhämatoms, Kallusformation und Neoangiogenese sind biologische Prozesse im Rahmen der Frakturkonsolidierung, bei denen eine intakte Vaskularisation Grundvoraussetzung ist. Daher ist eine gewisse Kenntnis der Humeruskopfdurchblutung essenziell, um das Risiko einer posttraumatischen avaskulären Kopfnekrose besser einschätzen zu können sowie relevante Strukturen im Rahmen einer kopferhaltenden operativen Versorgung zu schonen und zu wahren.

Literatur

  1. Allen MR, Hock JM, Burr DB (2004) Periosteum: biology, regulation, and response to osteoporosis therapies. Bone 35:1003–1012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andary JL, Petersen SA (2002) The vascular anatomy of the glenohumeral capsule and ligaments: an anatomic study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(12):2258–2265PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barvencik F, Gebauer M, Beil FT et al. (2010) Age- and sex-related changes of humeral head microarchitecture: histomorphometric analysis of 60 human specimens. J Orthop Res 28:18–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bastian JD, Hertel R (2008) Initial post-fracture humeral head ischemia does not predict development of necrosis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17:2–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernstein J, Adler LM, Blank JE et al. (1996) Evaluation of the Neer system of classification of proximal humeral fractures with computerized tomographic scans and plain radiographs. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:1371–1375PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bostrom MP (1998) Expression of bone morphogenetic proteins in fracture healing. Clin Orthop Relat Res:S116–S123Google Scholar
  7. Brien H, Noftall F, Macmaster S et al. (1995) Neer’s classification system: a critical appraisal. J Trauma 38:257–260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Brommage R, Hotchkiss CE, Lees CJ et al. (1999) Daily treatment with human recombinant parathyroid hormone-(1-34), LY333334, for 1 year increases bone mass in ovariectomized monkeys. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 84:3757–3763PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks CH, Revell WJ, Heatley FW (1993) Vascularity of the humeral head after proximal humeral fractures. An anatomical cadaver study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:132–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Brorson S, Bagger J, Sylvest A et al. (2002a) Improved interobserver variation after training of doctors in the Neer system. A randomised trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:950–954CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Brorson S, Bagger J, Sylvest A et al. (2002b) Low agreement among 24 doctors using the Neer-classification; only moderate agreement on displacement, even between specialists. Int Orthop 26:271–273CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Brunner A, Honigmann P, Treumann T et al. (2009) The impact of stereo-visualisation of three-dimensional CT datasets on the inter- and intraobserver reliability of the AO/OTA and Neer classifications in the assessment of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:766–771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Claes L, Eckert-Hubner K, Augat P (2002) The effect of mechanical stability on local vascularization and tissue differentiation in callus healing. J Orthop Res 20:1099–1105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Claes L, Eckert-Hubner K, Augat P (2003) The fracture gap size influences the local vascularization and tissue differentiation in callus healing. Langenbecks Arch Surg 388:316–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Codman E (1934) Fractures in relation to the subacromial bursa. In: Codman E (Hrsg) The shoulder, rupture of the supraspinatus tendon and other lesions in or about the subacromial bursa. Krieger, Malabar, S 313–331Google Scholar
  16. Court-Brown CM, Garg A, Mcqueen MM (2001) The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 72:365–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. D’elia G, Roselli G, Cavalli L et al. (2010) Severe osteoporosis: diagnosis of non-hip non-vertebral (NHNV) fractures. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 7:85–90PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. De La Garza O, Lierse W, Steiner D (1992) Anatomical study of the blood supply in the human shoulder region. Acta Anat (Basel) 145:412–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diederichs G, Korner J, Goldhahn J et al. (2006) Assessment of bone quality in the proximal humerus by measurement of the contralateral site: a cadaveric analyze. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 126:93–100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Duparc F (2008) Proximal humerus arterial blood revisited. In: Boileau PW, Molè D et al. (Hrsg) Proximal humerus fractures and fractures sequelae. Sauramps Medical, Montpellier, S 31–37Google Scholar
  21. Duparc F, Muller JM, Freger P (2001) Arterial blood supply of the proximal humeral epiphysis. Surg Radiol Anat 23:185–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Edelberg JM, Reed MJ (2003) Aging and angiogenesis. Front Biosci 8:s1199–s1209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Edelson G, Safuri H, Salami J et al. (2008) Natural history of complex fractures of the proximal humerus using a three-dimensional classification system. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17:399–409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Foruria AM, De Gracia MM, Larson DR et al. (2011) The pattern of the fracture and displacement of the fragments predict the outcome in proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:378–386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gerber C, Schneeberger AG, Vinh TS (1990) The arterial vascularization of the humeral head. An anatomical study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:1486–1494PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Glowacki J (1998) Angiogenesis in fracture repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res:S82–S89Google Scholar
  27. Gumina S, Giannicola G, Albino P et al. (2011) Comparison between two classifications of humeral head fractures: Neer and AO-ASIF. Acta Orthop Belg 77:751–757PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Grechenig W, Pichler W, Weiglein A (2008) Frakturen des proximalen Humerus. Mögliche Ursachen von Fehlschlägen bei Osteosynthesen. Trauma Berufskrankh 10 (Suppl 1): 53-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Habermeyer P, Schweiberer L (1989) Fractures of the proximal humerus. Orthopade 18:200–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hardeman F, Bollars P, Donnelly M et al. (2012) Predictive factors for functional outcome and failure in angular stable osteosynthesis of the proximal humerus. Injury 43:153–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hee HT, Wong HP, Low YP et al. (2001) Predictors of outcome of floating knee injuries in adults: 89 patients followed for 2-12 years. Acta Orthop Scand 72:385–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hepp P, Theopold J, Osterhoff G et al. (2009) Bone quality measured by the radiogrammetric parameter „cortical index“ and reoperations after locking plate osteosynthesis in patients sustaining proximal humerus fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129:1251–1259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Hertel R (2005) Fractures of the proximal humerus in osteoporotic bone. Osteoporos Int 16 (Suppl 2):S65–S72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hertel R, Hempfing A, Stiehler M et al. (2004) Predictors of humeral head ischemia after intracapsular fracture of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13:427–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Hettrich CM, Boraiah S, Dyke JP et al. (2010) Quantitative assessment of the vascularity of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:943–948CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Hirzinger C, Tauber M, Resch H (2011) Proximal humerus fracture: new aspects in epidemiology, fracture morphology, and diagnostics. Unfallchirurg 114:1051–1058CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones DB, Nolte H, Scholubbers JG et al. (1991) Biochemical signal transduction of mechanical strain in osteoblast-like cells. Biomaterials 12:101–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Joyce ME, Roberts AB, Sporn MB et al. (1990) Transforming growth factor-beta and the initiation of chondrogenesis and osteogenesis in the rat femur. J Cell Biol 110:2195–2207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Kannus P, Palvanen M, Niemi S et al. (2009) Rate of proximal humeral fractures in older Finnish women between 1970 and 2007. Bone 44:656–659CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Kirchen ME, O’connor KM, Gruber HE et al. (1995) Effects of microgravity on bone healing in a rat fibular osteotomy model. Clin Orthop Relat Res:231–242Google Scholar
  41. Kralinger F, Unger S, Wambacher M et al. (2009) The medial periosteal hinge, a key structure in fractures of the proximal humerus: a biomechanical cadaver study of its mechanical properties. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:973–976CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Krappinger D, Roth T, Gschwentner M et al. (2012) Preoperative assessment of the cancellous bone mineral density of the proximal humerus using CT data. Skeletal Radiol 41:299–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Kristiansen B, Andersen UL, Olsen CA et al. (1988) The Neer classification of fractures of the proximal humerus. An assessment of interobserver variation. Skeletal Radiol 17:420–422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kuiper JW, Van Kuijk C, Grashuis JL et al. (1996) Accuracy and the influence of marrow fat on quantitative CT and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurements of the femoral neck in vitro. Osteoporos Int 6:25–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Laing PG (1956) The arterial supply of the adult humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 38:1105–1116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Lill H, Hepp P, Gowin W et al. (2002) Age- and gender-related distribution of bone mineral density and mechanical properties of the proximal humerus. Rofo 174:1544–1550CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Lill H, Hepp P, Korner J et al. (2003) Proximal humeral fractures: how stiff should an implant be? A comparative mechanical study with new implants in human specimens. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 123:74–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Mahadeva D, Dias RG, Deshpande SV et al. (2011) The reliability and reproducibility of the Neer classification system--digital radiography (PACS) improves agreement. Injury 42:339–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Majed A, Macleod I, Bull AM et al. (2011) Proximal humeral fracture classification systems revisited. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 20:1125–1132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Menck J, Dobler A, Dohler JR (1997) Vascularization of the humerus. Langenbecks Arch Chir 382:123–127PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Meyer C, Alt V, Hassanin H et al. (2005) The arteries of the humeral head and their relevance in fracture treatment. Surg Radiol Anat 27:232–237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Meyer RA, Jr., Meyer MH, Tenholder M et al. (2003) Gene expression in older rats with delayed union of femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(7):1243–1254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Midura RJ, Su X, Morcuende JA et al. (2003) Parathyroid hormone rapidly stimulates hyaluronan synthesis by periosteal osteoblasts in the tibial diaphysis of the growing rat. J Biol Chem 278:51462–51468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Mizumoto Y, Moseley T, Drews M et al. (2003) Acceleration of regenerate ossification during distraction osteogenesis with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-7. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A (Suppl 3):124–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Müller ME, Nazarian SK, Koch P, Schatzker, J (Hrsg) (1990) The comprehensive classification of fractures of long bones. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  56. Neer CS, 2nd (1970) Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 52:1077–1089PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Nieminen S, Nurmi M, Satokari K (1981) Healing of femoral neck fractures; influence of fracture reduction and age. Ann Chir Gynaecol 70:26–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Olschewski E, Murray P, Buckley R et al. (2001) Assessment of osteoporosis using standard radiographs of the wrist. J Trauma 51:912–916CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Osterhoff G, Diederichs G, Tami A et al. (2012) Influence of trabecular microstructure and cortical index on the complexity of proximal humeral fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132:509–515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Palvanen M, Kannus P, Niemi S et al. (2006) Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 442:87–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Reddi AH (2001) Bone morphogenetic proteins: from basic science to clinical applications. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A (Suppl 1):S1–S6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Reed MJ, Edelberg JM (2004) Impaired angiogenesis in the aged. Sci Aging Knowledge Environ 2004:pe7Google Scholar
  63. Rhinelander FW (1979) Vascular proliferation and blood supply during fracture healing. In: Brooker AF, Edwards CC (Hrsg) External fixation: the current state of the art. Williams & Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  64. Sciadini MF, Dawson JM, Banit D et al. (2000) Growth factor modulation of distraction osteogenesis in a segmental defect model. Clin Orthop Relat Res:266–277Google Scholar
  65. Seebeck J, Goldhahn J, Stadele H et al. (2004) Effect of cortical thickness and cancellous bone density on the holding strength of internal fixator screws. J Orthop Res 22:1237–1242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Sidor ML, Zuckerman JD, Lyon T et al. (1993) The Neer classification system for proximal humeral fractures. An assessment of interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:1745–1750PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Siebenrock KA, Gerber C (1993) The reproducibility of classification of fractures of the proximal end of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75:1751–1755PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Sjoden GO, Movin T, Guntner P et al. (1997) Poor reproducibility of classification of proximal humeral fractures. Additional CT of minor value. Acta Orthop Scand 68:239–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Sjoden GO, Movin T, Aspelin P et al. (1999) 3-D-radiographic analysis does not improve the Neer and AO classifications of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 70:325–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Solberg BD, Moon CN, Franco DP et al. (2009) Locked plating of 3- and 4-part proximal humerus fractures in older patients: the effect of initial fracture pattern on outcome. J Orthop Trauma 23:113–119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Tingart MJ, Apreleva M, Von Stechow D et al. (2003a) The cortical thickness of the proximal humeral diaphysis predicts bone mineral density of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85:611–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tingart MJ, Bouxsein ML, Zurakowski D et al. (2003b) Three-dimensional distribution of bone density in the proximal humerus. Calcif Tissue Int 73:531–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wallace AL, Draper ER, Strachan RK et al. (1994) The vascular response to fracture micromovement. Clin Orthop Relat Res:281–290Google Scholar
  74. Warriner AH, Patkar NM, Curtis JR et al. (2011) Which fractures are most attributable to osteoporosis? J Clin Epidemiol 64:46–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Yudell RM, Block MS (2000) Bone gap healing in the dog using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:761–766CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Tauber
    • 2
  • Herbert Resch
    • 1
  1. 1.Paracelsus Medizinische Universität SalzburgSalzburgÖsterreich
  2. 2.ATOS Klinik MünchenMünchenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations