January 2017

PEEK versus titanium locking plates for proximal humerus fracture fixation: a comparative biomechanical study in two- and three-part fractures

16 de enero de 2017 Avisos, Hombro y codo, Traumatología del Deporte 1,849 Vistos

PEEK versus titanium locking plates for proximal humerus fracture fixation: a comparative biomechanical study in two- and three-part fractures

Authors

Benedikt Schliemann
Robert Seifert
Christina Theisen
Dominic Gehweiler
Dirk Wähnert
Martin Schulze
Michael J. Raschke
Andre Weimann

Abstract

Introduction

The high rigidity of metal implants may be a cause of failure after fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone (PEEK) plates with a modulus similar to human cortical bone may help to overcome this problem. The present study assesses the biomechanical behavior of a PEEK plate compared with a titanium locking plate.

Materials and methods

Unstable two- and three-part fractures were simulated in 12 pairs of cadaveric humeri and were fixed with either a PEEK or a titanium locking plate using a pairwise comparison. With an optical motion capture system, the stiffness, failure load, plate bending, and the relative motion at the bone–implant interface and at the fracture site were evaluated.

Results

The mean load to failure for two- and three-part fracture fixations was, respectively, 191 N (range 102–356 N) and 142 N (range 102–169 N) in the PEEK plate group compared with 286 N (range 191–395 N) and 258 N (range 155–366 N) in the titanium locking plate group. The PEEK plate showed significantly more bending in both the two- and three-part fractures (p < 0.05), an increased relative motion at the bone–implant interface and lower stiffness values (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

In this biomechanical study on unstable proximal humerus fractures, fixation with a PEEK plate showed lower fixation strength and increased motion at the bone–implant interface compared with a titanium locking plate.

Keywords

Proximal humerus fractureLocking plate fixationPEEK platePHILOS plateBiomechanics

References

1.

Bell JE, Leung BC, Spratt KF, Koval KJ, Weinstein JD, Goodman DC, Tosteson AN (2011) Trends and variation in incidence, surgical treatment, and repeat surgery of proximal humeral fractures in the elderly. J Bone Jt Surg Am 93(2):121–131. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.01505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.

Warriner AH, Patkar NM, Curtis JR, Delzell E, Gary L, Kilgore M, Saag K (2011) Which fractures are most attributable to osteoporosis? J Clin Epidemiol 64(1):46–53. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.007CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
3.

Palvanen M, Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J (2006) Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 442:87–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
4.

Gupta AK, Harris JD, Erickson BJ, Abrams GD, Bruce B, McCormick F, Nicholson GP, Romeo AA (2014) Surgical management of complex proximal humerus fractures—a systematic review of 92 studies including 4500 patients. J Orthop Trauma. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000229Google Scholar
5.

Schliemann B, Siemoneit J, Theisen C, Kösters C, Weimann A, Raschke MJ (2012) Complex fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly—outcome and complications after locking plate fixation. Musculoskelet Surg 96(Suppl 1):S3–S11. doi:10.1007/s12306-012-0181-8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
6.

Sproul RC, Iyengar JJ, Devcic Z, Feeley BT (2011) A systematic review of locking plate fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Injury 42(4):408–413. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2010.11.058CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
7.

Thanasas C, Kontakis G, Angoules A, Limb D, Giannoudis P (2009) Treatment of proximal humerus fractures with locking plates: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18(6):837–844. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.06.004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
8.

Maldonado ZM, Seebeck J, Heller MO, Brandt D, Hepp P, Lill H, Duda GN (2003) Straining of the intact and fractured proximal humerus under physiological-like loading. J Biomech 36(12):1865–1873CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
9.

Gardner MJ, Nork SE, Huber P, Krieg JC (2010) Less rigid stable fracture fixation in osteoporotic bone using locked plates with near cortical slots. Injury 41(6):652–656. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2010.02.022CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
10.

Epari DR, Kassi JP, Schell H, Duda GN (2007) Timely fracture-healing requires optimization of axial fixation stability. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89(7):1575–1585. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00247Google Scholar
11.

Brunner A, Resch H, Babst R, Kathrein S, Fierlbeck J, Niederberger A, Schmolz W (2012) The Humerusblock NG: a new concept for stabilization of proximal humeral fractures and its biomechanical evaluation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132(7):985–992. doi:10.1007/s00402-012-1503-xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
12.

Brunner A, Weller K, Thormann S, Jockel JA, Babst R (2010) Closed reduction and minimally invasive percutaneous fixation of proximal humerus fractures using the Humerusblock. J Orthop Trauma 24(7):407–413. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181c81b1cCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
13.

Kralinger F, Gschwentner M, Wambacher M, Smekal V, Haid C (2008) Proximal humeral fractures: what is semi-rigid? Biomechanical properties of semi-rigid implants, a biomechanical cadaver based evaluation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(2):205–210. doi:10.1007/s00402-007-0512-7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
14.

Steinberg EL, Rath E, Shlaifer A, Chechik O, Maman E, Salai M (2013) Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK optima—a composite material biomechanical properties and wear/debris characteristics of CF-PEEK composites for orthopedic trauma implants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 17:221–228. doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2012.09.013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
15.

Röderer G, Scola A, Schmolz W, Gebhard F, Windolf M, Hofmann-Fliri L (2013) Biomechanical in vitro assessment of screw augmentation in locked plating of proximal humerus fractures. Injury 44(10):1327–1332. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2013.05.008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
16.

Unger S, Erhart S, Kralinger F, Blauth M, Schmoelz W (2012) The effect of in situ augmentation on implant anchorage in proximal humeral head fractures. Injury 43(10):1759–1763. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2012.07.003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
17.

Lill H, Hepp P, Korner J, Kassi JP, Verheyden AP, Josten C, Duda GN (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(2–3):74–81. doi:10.1007/s00402-002-0465-9PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.

Bottlang M, Doornink J, Byrd GD, Fitzpatrick DC, Madey SM (2009) A nonlocking end screw can decrease fracture risk caused by locked plating in the osteoporotic diaphysis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 91(3):620–627. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.

Dietrich M, Meier C, Lattmann T, Zingg U, Gruninger P, Platz A (2008) Complex fracture of the proximal humerus in the elderly. Locking plate osteosynthesis vs hemiarthroplasty. Chirurg 79(3):231–240. doi:10.1007/s00104-007-1436-zCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
20.

Schliemann B, Hartensuer R, Koch T, Theisen C, Raschke MJ, Kösters C, Weimann A (2015) Treatment of proximal humerus fractures with a CFR-PEEK plate: 2-year-results of a prospective study and comparison to fixation with a conventional locking plate. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24(8):1282–1288. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.12.028CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
21.

Krappinger D, Bizzotto N, Riedmann S, Kammerlander C, Hengg C, Kralinger FS (2011) Predicting failure after surgical fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Injury 42(11):1283–1288. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2011.01.017CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
22.

Owsley KC, Gorczyca JT (2008) Fracture displacement and screw cutout after open reduction and locked plate fixation of proximal humeral fractures [corrected]. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90(2):233–240. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.01351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.

Katthagen JC, Schwarze M, Meyer-Kobbe J, Voigt C, Hurschler C, Lill H (2014) Biomechanical effects of calcar screws and bone block augmentation on medial support in locked plating of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 29(7):735–741. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.06.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.

Zhang L, Zheng J, Wang W, Lin G, Huang Y, Zheng J, Edem Prince GA, Yang G (2011) The clinical benefit of medial support screws in locking plating of proximal humerus fractures: a prospective randomized study. Int Orthop 35(11):1655–1661. doi:10.1007/s00264-011-1227-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
25.

Zhang W, Zeng L, Liu Y, Pan Y, Zhang W, Zhang C, Zeng B, Chen Y (2014) The mechanical benefit of medial support screws in locking plating of proximal humerus fractures. PLoS One 9(8):e103297. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0103297CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
26.

Schliemann B, Seifert R, Rosslenbroich SB, Theisen C, Wahnert D, Raschke MJ, Weimann A (2015) Screw augmentation reduces motion at the bone-implant interface: a biomechanical study of locking plate fixation of proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 4(12):1968–1973. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.06.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.

Kathrein S, Kralinger F, Blauth M, Schmoelz W (2013) Biomechanical comparison of an angular stable plate with augmented and non-augmented screws in a newly developed shoulder test bench. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 28(3):273–277. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2012.12.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.

Roderer G, Gebhard F, Krischak G, Wilke HJ, Claes L (2011) Biomechanical in vitro assessment of fixed angle plating using a new concept of locking for the treatment of osteoporotic proximal humerus fractures. Int Orthop 35(4):535–541. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-1021-9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
29.

Euler SA, Hengg C, Wambacher M, Spiegl UJ, Kralinger F (2014) Allogenic bone grafting for augmentation in two-part proximal humeral fracture fixation in a high-risk patient population. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. doi:10.1007/s00402-014-2128-zGoogle Scholar
30.

Gardner MJ, Weil Y, Barker JU, Kelly BT, Helfet DL, Lorich DG (2007) The importance of medial support in locked plating of proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma 21(3):185–191. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e3180333094CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
31.

Neviaser AS, Hettrich CM, Beamer BS, Dines JS, Lorich DG (2011) Endosteal strut augment reduces complications associated with proximal humeral locking plates. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(12):3300–3306. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1949-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
32.

Somasundaram K, Huber CP, Babu V, Zadeh H (2013) Proximal humeral fractures: the role of calcium sulphate augmentation and extended deltoid splitting approach in internal fixation using locking plates. Injury 44(4):481–487. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2012.10.030CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
33.

Tan E, Lie D, Wong MK (2014) Early outcomes of proximal humerus fracture fixation with locking plate and intramedullary fibular strut graft. Orthopedics 37(9):e822–e827. doi:10.3928/01477447-20140825-60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
34.

Zhu L, Liu Y, Yang Z, Li H, Wang J, Zhao C, Chen X, Zhang Y (2014) Locking plate fixation combined with iliac crest bone autologous graft for proximal humerus comminuted fracture. Chin Med J 127(9):1672–1676PubMedGoogle Scholar
35.

Westerhoff P, Graichen F, Bender A, Halder A, Beier A, Rohlmann A, Bergmann G (2009) In vivo measurement of shoulder joint loads during activities of daily living. J Biomech 42(12):1840–1849. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.05.035CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
36.

Katthagen JC, Schwarze M, Warnhoff M, Voigt C, Hurschler C, Lill H (2016) Influence of plate material and screw design on stiffness and ultimate load of locked plating in osteoporotic proximal humeral fractures. Injury 47(3):617–624. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2016.01.004

Sogacot Sociedad Gallega de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología

PEEK versus titanium locking plates for proximal humerus fracture fixation: a comparative biomechanical study in two- and three-part fractures

Artículos Relacionados

PEEK versus titanium locking plates for proximal humerus fracture fixation: a comparative biomechanical study in two- and three-part fractures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Puede ver también

Complications after surgical treatment of pelvic fractures: a five‑year follow‑up of 194 patients

PEEK versus titanium locking plates for proximal humerus fracture fixation: a comparative biomechanical study in two- and three-part fractures

Artículos Relacionados

I Curso de Hombro del CHUAC – Fracturas y Patología Degenerativa del Húmero Proximal

Bolsas de formación Cátedra HM de Traumatología del deporte de la UDC

The role of cerclage wiring in the management of subtrochanteric and reverse oblique intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis of comparative studies

PEEK versus titanium locking plates for proximal humerus fracture fixation: a comparative biomechanical study in two- and three-part fractures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Puede ver también

Complications after surgical treatment of pelvic fractures: a five‑year follow‑up of 194 patients