Elsevier

Clinical Biomechanics

Volume 22, Issue 2, February 2007, Pages 176-182
Clinical Biomechanics

Locked vs. unlocked plate osteosynthesis of the proximal humerus – A biomechanical study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.08.009Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

Locked plates (internal fixators) have been found to be an optimal method for the fixation in proximal humeral fractures. In a biomechanical cadaver study the difference between locked and non-locked osteosyntheses was investigated.

Methods

Paired humeri were harvested, bone density measured. Locked internal fixators were mounted on one specimen; identical plate–screw-systems without locking mechanism applied to the contralateral specimen for comparison. After that, a transverse subcapital osteotomy was performed. With 7 pairs of humeri static tests with increasing axial loads and with 5 pairs dynamic tests with 10 N preload and 80 N maximal axial load for up to 1 million cycles were performed.

Results

In the static experiments the elastic stiffness of the construct was 74% higher in the locked group (median 80 N/mm, quartile range 77–86 N/mm) compared with the non-locked group (46 N/mm, 35.5–56.5 N/mm). The difference was statistically significant (Wilcoxon test for paired samples, P < 0.05). Similarly, the linear range until failure was definitely extended in the locked group by 64% (92 N, 89–98 N vs. 56 N, 36.5–73.5 N, P < 0.05). Under dynamic loading the non-locked group showed fixation failures between 97,000 and 500,000 cycles. In the locked group no failure was observed until the end of the experiment at 1 million cycles (P < 0.0.5). The final deformation was found to be 1 mm (median, quartil range 1.0–1.2 mm) in the non-locked group and 0.3 mm (0.2–0.3 mm) in the locked group (P < 0.05). The differences were found equally in lower as well as in higher bone density specimen.

Interpretation

Because of the optimal load transfer between implant and cancellous bone, a locked screw plate interface will reduce fixation failure in proximal humeral fractures.

Introduction

Fractures of the proximal humerus are among the most common injuries. It is a typical injury of elderly individuals with an osteoporotic bone substance. While many of these fractures can be treated conservatively, there is a clear trend towards surgical treatment. This is especially the case in displaced fractures. The main advantage is the possibility of mobilizing the joint at an early stage. Conventional plate fixation has stood the test of time for many years. Besides a possible impairment of perfusion leading to humeral head necrosis (DeFrano et al., 2006), the main problem of plate fixation in the humeral head is the anchoring of the screws in osteoporotic bone. A typical resulting complication is the loosening of the implant with varus dislocation of the head (Hessmann and Rommens, 2001, Lungershausen and Bach, 2003).

Systems with a locked screw plate interface (internal fixators) have been available since 1997 and have reduced the complication rate due to a higher stability. Locked plates are characterized by an angle-stable screw–plate interface, typically realized by threaded screw heads which are either fixed in a thread in the plate (Lill et al., 2004) requiring an exact angle of the screw, e.g., 90°, or by a thread in the screw head cutting itself into the plate in an angle determined by the surgeon (Wolter et al., 1999). Promising clinical results using a locked system in the humeral head were first documented by Wurm et al. (1999). Further clinical studies also reported good clinical results, concluding that the locked plate is now a system of choice in the proximal humerus (Lungershausen and Bach, 2003, Hente et al., 2004, Lill et al., 2004).

In an in vitro study (Lill et al., 2003), different non-locked and locked implants were analysed under static and dynamic varus stress. The humerus T-plate, the cross-screw-osteosynthesis, the unreamed proximal humeral nail (UHN) with spiral cling, the Synclaw proximal humerus nail (SPH) and the locked proximal humerus plate (LPHP) were compared. It was concluded that very rigid implants (HTP, UHN) were the most stable under static tests but showed loosening of the screws under dynamic load. The relatively small anatomically formed LPHP with a locked screw plate interface was found to show the best results in osteoporotic bone anchoring. In addition, combining locked screws with nail implants seemed to be a favorable approach (Mathews and Lobenhoffer, 2004). Thus, it can be concluded from the literature that locked systems are biomechanically favorable in the region of the humeral head.

However, those studies did not directly compare locked vs. unlocked implants of the same shape. Seide et al. (1999) compared equally shaped locked with unlocked osteosyntheses on plastic models of different material densities. It was demonstrated that a locked construction showed significantly more stability in simulated osteoporosis, limited plate to bone contact in tubular bone or short periarticular fragments. For example, in a meta-epiphysial model using foam comparable to cancellous bone a 5-fold increase in failure strength was found for the locked construct.

The hypothesis of a locked plate fixation showing more ultimate strength in the humeral head than a non-locked one was tested in a cadaver specimens study. Care was taken to use the same plate and screw geometry in both groups and to investigate the mode of failure under static as well as dynamic conditions.

Section snippets

Methods

Corresponding left and right humeri were harvested from 12 human cadavers and fresh frozen at −20 °C. Bone density was measured in a CT-scanner (Tomoscan SR 7000, Philips, Eindhoven, The Netherlands) evaluating a circular area in a transverse section at the level of the maximum diameter of the humerus head. The size of the area was adjusted, so that the whole marked region of interest included solely cancellous bone and cortical parts were omitted. Relative values of bone densities were obtained

Static tests under increasing axial load

Analysing the load deformation curves (Fig. 2), at low loads a range of linear elastic deformation was seen. The load deformation curve flattens, while a plastic deformation took place in the bone. The low load elastic stiffness of the construct was 74% higher in the locked group (median 80 N/mm) compared with the non-locked group (median 46 N/mm). Similarly, the linear range until failure was definitely extended in the locked group by 64% (92 N vs. 56 N) (Table 1, Fig. 6). The Wilcoxon paired test

Discussion

In the present study, the hypothesis of a locked plate fixation showing more strength in the humeral head than a non-locked one was tested utilizing human cadaver specimens. As distinguished from comparing different locked and unlocked implants (Lill et al., 2003), the same plate and screw geometry was used in both groups. Regardless of the mineral density, consistent higher failure loads were determined for all locked screw plate specimens. The dynamic study clearly showed a specific mode of

References (15)

  • C.E. Cann

    Quantitative CT for determination of bone mineral density: a review

    Radiology

    (1988)
  • M.J. DeFrano et al.

    Evaluation and management of valgus impacted four-part proximal humerus fractures

    Clin. Orthop. Rel. Res.

    (2006)
  • R. Hente et al.

    Treatment of displaced 3- and 4-part fractures of the proximal humerus with fixator plate comprising angular stability

    Unfallchirurg

    (2004)
  • P. Hepp et al.

    Where should implants be anchored in the humeral head

    Clin. Orthop. Rel. Res.

    (2003)
  • M.H. Hessmann et al.

    Osteosynthesis techniques in proximal humeral fractures

    Chirurg

    (2001)
  • H. Lill et al.

    Proximal humeral fractures: how stiff should an implant be? A comparative mechanical study with new implants in human specimens

    Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg.

    (2003)
  • H. Lill et al.

    The angle stable Locking-Proximal-Humerus-Plate (LPHP) for proximal humeral fractures using a small anterior–lateral–deltoid–splitting-approach – technique and first results

    Zentralbl. Chir.

    (2004)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (117)

  • Devices for traumatology: Biomechanics and design

    2022, Human Orthopaedic Biomechanics: Fundamentals, Devices and Applications
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text