A comparative biomechanical study on different fixation techniques in the management of transverse metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction fractures of the distal humerus in children
- 256 Downloads
Metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction (MDJ) fractures of the distal humerus are problematic to reduce and more susceptible to post-operative complications. This biomechanical study was designed to compare Kirschner wires (KW), lateral external fixation, and elastic stable intramedullary nails (ESIN) in simulated transverse MDJ fractures of various heights.
Sagittally oblique, transverse MDJ fractures were created in fourth-generation composite bone models at three levels: high, mid, and low fractures, respectively, and then fixed with either Kirschner wires, lateral external fixation (EF), or ESIN respectively and tested in extension, flexion, valgus, varus, internal, and external rotations.
In the high fractures, ESIN had better overall stiffness than the other techniques. In the mid groups, three crossed pinning (1-medial and 2-lateral pins) had the best overall stiffness, followed by two crossed pinning (1-medial and 1-lateral pins). In the low fractures, three crossed pinning was superior to all other techniques. Two crossed pinning and three -lateral pinning techniques yielded comparable stiffness in the low fracture model.
From a biomechanical perspective, ESIN provides the best overall stability for fractures located in the upper region of the MDJ, while percutaneous pinning is superior in stabilizing fractures of the lower region. Two lateral and one medial pins make the most stable crossed pinning construct for these fractures.
KeywordsMetaphyseal-diaphyseal junction Supracondylar humeral fracture Kirschner wires Elastic stable intramedullary nails Lateral external fixation Biomechanical study
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 5.Marengo L, Canavese F, Cravino M, De Rosa V, Rousset M, Samba A, Mansour M, Andreacchio A (2015) Outcome of displaced fractures of the distal metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction of the humerus in children treated with elastic stable intramedullary nails. J Pediatr Orthop 35:611–616. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000000340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Ge YH, Wang ZG, Cai HQ, Yang J, Xu YL, Li YC (2014) Flexible intramedullary nailing had better outcomes than Kirschner wire fixation in children with distal humeral metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction fracture: a retrospective observational analysis. Int J Clin Exp Med 7:3568–3572Google Scholar
- 13.Havránek P, Pesl T (2002) Use of the elastic stable intramedullary nailing technique in non-typical pediatric fractures. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cechoslov 69(2):73–78Google Scholar
- 17.Flynn JM, Skaggs DL (2010) Femoral shaft fractures. In: Beaty JH, Kasser JR (eds) Rockwood and Wilkins fractures in children, 7th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, p 812Google Scholar
- 19.Prashant K, Lakhotia D, Bhattacharyya TD, Mahanta AK, Ravoof A (2016) A comparative study of two percutaneous pinning techniques (lateral vs medial-lateral) for Gartland type III pediatric supracondylar fracture of the humerus. J Orthop Traumatol 17:223–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-016-0410-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Slobogean BL, Jackman H, Tennant S, Slobogean GP, Mulpuri K (2010) Iatrogenic ulnar nerve injury after the surgical treatment of displaced supracondylar fractures of the humerus: number needed to harm, a systematic review. J Pediatr Orthop 30(5):430–436. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181e00c0d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Gottschalk HP, Sagoo D, Glaser D, Doan J, Edmonds EW, Schlechter J (2012) Biomechanical analysis of pin placement for pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures: does starting point, pin size, and number matter? J Pediatr Orthop 32:445–451. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e318257d1cd CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Hohloch L, Konstantinidis L, Wagner FC, Strohm PC, Südkamp NP, Reising K (2016) Biomechanical comparison of different external fixator configurations for stabilization of supracondylar humerus fractures in children. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 32:118–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Lee SS, Mahar AT, Miesen D, Newton PO (2002) Displaced pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures: biomechanical analysis of percutaneous pinning techniques. J Pediatr Orthop 22(4):440–443Google Scholar