Medial kelebek fragmanlı humerus cisim kırıklarında farklı internal tespit yöntemlerinin biyomekanik değerlendirmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı medial kelebek fragmanlı humerus cisim kırıklarında üç biyolojik tespit yönteminin biyomekanik dayanıklılıklarını karşılaştırmaktı. Çalışma planı: Yirmi bir adet sentetik kortikal shell humerusta AO 12B2 kırık şekline benzer biçimde kelebek fragmanlar oluşturuldu. Humeruslara kilitli köprü plaklama, antegrad intramedüller çivileme veya retrograd intramedüller çivileme uygulandı. Rotasyonel ve dört-nokta bükülme testinde elde edilen yer değiştirme eğrisi değerleri kaydedildi. Bulgular: Burulma testlerinde elde edilen ortalama yer değiştirme değerleri; köprü plaklama grubunda 37.38 (dağılım: 25.75-55.69) mm, antegrad çivileme grubunda 26.55 (dağılım: 21.25-41.81) mm ve retrograd çivileme grubunda 33.23 (dağılım: 27.50-46.45) mm olarak saptandı. Dört nokta bükülme testinde elde edilen ortalama yer değiştirme değerleri; köprü plaklama grubunda 3.27 (dağılım: 2.54-3.73) mm, antegrad çivileme grubunda 3.17 (dağılım: 2.69-3.55) mm ve retrograd çivileme grubunda 3.15 (dağılım: 2.10-4.03) mm idi. Gruplar arasında anlamlı fark saptanmadı (p>0.05). Çıkarımlar: Medial kelebek fragmanlı humerus cisim kırıklarının tespitinde köprü plaklama, antegrad intramedüller çivileme ve retrograd intramedüller çivileme sistemlerinin biyomekanik stabilite açısından birbirlerine üstünlüğü olmadığı saptandı.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Antegrad intramedüller çivileme; humerus cisim kırığı; köprü plaklama; medial kelebek fragman; retrograd intramedüller çivileme.

Biomechanical evaluation of different internal fixation methods for humerus shaft fractures with medial butterfly fragment

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical strength of three fixation methods in humerus shaft fractures with medial butterfly fragment.
Methods: An AO 12B2 fracture with butterfly fragment was created in 21 synthetic cortical shell humeri. Humeri were divided into 3 groups which underwent bridge plating, antegrade intramedullary nailing or retrograde intramedullary nailing. Rotational and four-point bending test displacement curves were obtained.
Results: Mean displacement values in the torsion tests were 37.38 (range: 25.75 to 55.69) mm in the bridge plating group, 26.55 (range: 21.25 to 41.81) mm in the antegrade nailing group, and 33.23
(range: 27.50 to 46.45) mm in the retrograde nailing group. Mean displacement values in the fourpoint bending test were 3.27 (range: 2.54 to 3.73) mm in the bridge plating group, 3.17 (range: 2.69
to 3.55) mm in the antegrade nailing group, and 3.15 (range: 2.10 to 4.03) mm in the retrograde nailing group. No significant difference was found among the groups (p>0.05).
Conclusion: The biomechanical stability of bridge plating, antegrade intramedullary nailing and retrograde intramedullary nailing appears to be similar in the fixation of humerus shaft fractures with medial butterfly fragment.

Keywords

• Antegrade intramedullary nailing
• bridge plating
• humerus shaft fracture
• medial butterfly fragment
• retrograde intramedullary nailing

Kaynakça

1. Ekholm R, Adami J, Tidermark J, Hansson K, Törnkvist H, Ponzer S. Fractures of the shaft of the humerus. An epidemi- ological study of 401 fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006;88: 1469-73.
2. Tytherleigh-Strong G, Walls N, McQueen MM. The epi- demiology of humeral shaft fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80:249-53.
3. Castellá FB, Garcia FB, Berry EM, Perelló EB, Sánchez- Alepuz E, Gabarda R. Nonunion of the humeral shaft: long lateral butterfly fracture – a nonunion predictive pattern? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;(424):227-30.
4. Jupiter JB, von Deck M. Ununited humeral diaphyses. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1998;7:644-53.
5. Klenerman L. Fractures of the shaft of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1966;48:105-11.
6. Modabber MR, Jupiter JB. Operative management of diaphy- seal fractures of the humerus. Plate versus nail. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998;(347):93-104.
7. Zagorski JB, Latta LL, Zych GA, Finnieston AR. Diaphyseal fractures of the humerus. Treatment with prefabricated braces. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1988;70:607-10.
8. Blum J, Karagül G, Sternstein W, Rommens PM. Bending and torsional stiffness in cadaver humeri fixed with a self-lock- ing expandable or interlocking nail system: a mechanical study. J Orthop Trauma 2005;19:535-42.

9. Corley FG, Williams GR, Pearce JC, Rockwood CA Jr. The management of nonunions of the humerus. Instr Course Lect 1990;39:277-88.
10. Carroll SE. A study of the nutrient foramina of the humeral diaphysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1963;45-B:176-81.
11. Lin J, Inoue N, Valdevit A, Hang YS, Hou SM, Chao EY. Biomechanical comparison of antegrade and retrograde nail- ing of humeral shaft fracture. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; (351):203-13.
12. Ulian V, Mazzer N, Barbieri CH, Moro CA. Primary stabi- lization of humeral shaft fractures: an experimental study of different osteosynthesis methods. Acta Ortop Bras 2008;16:8- 12.
13. Blum J, Machemer H, Baumgart F, Schlegel U, Wahl D, Rommens PM. Biomechanical comparison of bending and torsional properties in retrograde intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma 1999;13:344-50.
14. Perren SM. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. The scientific basis of biological internal fixation: choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002;84:1093-110.
15. Livani B, Belangero WD. Bridging plate osteosynthesis of humeral shaft fractures. Injury 2004;35:587-95.
16. O'Toole RV, Andersen RC, Vesnovsky O, Alexander M, Topoleski LD, Nascone JW, et al. Are locking screws advan- tageous with plate fixation of humeral shaft fractures? A bio- mechanical analysis of synthetic and cadaveric bone. J Orthop Trauma 2008;22:709-15.
17. Zhiquan A, Bingfang Z, Yeming W, Chi Z, Peiyan H. Minimally invasive plating osteosynthesis (MIPO) of middle and distal third humeral shaft fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2007;21:628-33.
18. Apivatthakakul T, Arpornchayanon O, Bavornratanavech S. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) of the humer- al shaft fracture. Is it possible? A cadaveric study and prelimi- nary report. Injury 2005;36:530-8.
19. Chapman JR, Henley MB, Agel J, Benca PJ. Randomized prospective study of humeral shaft fracture fixation: intramedullary nails versus plates. J Orthop Trauma 2000;14: 162-6.
20. Zimmerman MC, Waite AM, Deehan M, Tovey J, Oppenheim W. A biomechanical analysis of four humeral fracture fixation systems. J Orthop Trauma 1994;8:233-9.
21. Gardner MJ, Griffith MH, Demetrakopoulos D, Brophy RH, Grose A, Helfet DL, et al. Hybrid locked plating of osteo- porotic fractures of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88:1962-7.
22. Chen AL, Joseph TN, Wolinksy PR, Tejwani NC, Kummer FJ, Egol KA, et al. Fixation stability of comminuted humeral shaft fractures: locked intramedullary nailing versus plate fixa- tion. J Trauma 2002;53:733-7.
23. Maher SA, Meyers K, Borens O, Suk M, Grose A, Wright TM. Biomechanical evaluation of an expandable nail for the fixation of midshaft fractures. J Trauma 2007;63:103-7.