Cargando…
A scoping review of biomechanical testing for proximal humerus fracture implants
BACKGROUND: Fixation failure is a relatively common sequela of surgical management of proximal humerus fractures (PHF). The purpose of this study is to understand the current state of the literature with regard to the biomechanical testing of proximal humerus fracture implants. METHODS: A scoping re...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4520267/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26223275 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0627-x |
_version_ | 1782383637831876608 |
---|---|
author | Cruickshank, David Lefaivre, Kelly A. Johal, Herman MacIntyre, Norma J. Sprague, Sheila A. Scott, Taryn Guy, Pierre Cripton, Peter A. McKee, Michael Bhandari, Mohit Slobogean, Gerard P. |
author_facet | Cruickshank, David Lefaivre, Kelly A. Johal, Herman MacIntyre, Norma J. Sprague, Sheila A. Scott, Taryn Guy, Pierre Cripton, Peter A. McKee, Michael Bhandari, Mohit Slobogean, Gerard P. |
author_sort | Cruickshank, David |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Fixation failure is a relatively common sequela of surgical management of proximal humerus fractures (PHF). The purpose of this study is to understand the current state of the literature with regard to the biomechanical testing of proximal humerus fracture implants. METHODS: A scoping review of the proximal humerus fracture literature was performed, and studies testing the mechanical properties of a PHF treatment were included in this review. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the characteristics and methods of the included studies. RESULTS: 1,051 proximal humerus fracture studies were reviewed; 67 studies met our inclusion criteria. The most common specimen used was cadaver bone (87 %), followed by sawbones (7 %) and animal bones (4 %). A two-part fracture pattern was tested most frequently (68 %), followed by three-part (23 %), and four-part (8 %). Implants tested included locking plates (52 %), intramedullary devices (25 %), and non-locking plates (25 %). Hemi-arthroplasty was tested in 5 studies (7 %), with no studies using reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) implants. Torque was the most common mode of force applied (51 %), followed by axial loading (45 %), and cantilever bending (34 %). Substantial testing diversity was observed across all studies. CONCLUSIONS: The biomechanical literature was found to be both diverse and heterogeneous. More complex fracture patterns and RTSA implants have not been adequately tested. These gaps in the current literature will need to be addressed to ensure that future biomechanical research is clinically relevant and capable of improving the outcomes of challenging proximal humerus fracture patterns. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0627-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4520267 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-45202672015-07-31 A scoping review of biomechanical testing for proximal humerus fracture implants Cruickshank, David Lefaivre, Kelly A. Johal, Herman MacIntyre, Norma J. Sprague, Sheila A. Scott, Taryn Guy, Pierre Cripton, Peter A. McKee, Michael Bhandari, Mohit Slobogean, Gerard P. BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Fixation failure is a relatively common sequela of surgical management of proximal humerus fractures (PHF). The purpose of this study is to understand the current state of the literature with regard to the biomechanical testing of proximal humerus fracture implants. METHODS: A scoping review of the proximal humerus fracture literature was performed, and studies testing the mechanical properties of a PHF treatment were included in this review. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the characteristics and methods of the included studies. RESULTS: 1,051 proximal humerus fracture studies were reviewed; 67 studies met our inclusion criteria. The most common specimen used was cadaver bone (87 %), followed by sawbones (7 %) and animal bones (4 %). A two-part fracture pattern was tested most frequently (68 %), followed by three-part (23 %), and four-part (8 %). Implants tested included locking plates (52 %), intramedullary devices (25 %), and non-locking plates (25 %). Hemi-arthroplasty was tested in 5 studies (7 %), with no studies using reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) implants. Torque was the most common mode of force applied (51 %), followed by axial loading (45 %), and cantilever bending (34 %). Substantial testing diversity was observed across all studies. CONCLUSIONS: The biomechanical literature was found to be both diverse and heterogeneous. More complex fracture patterns and RTSA implants have not been adequately tested. These gaps in the current literature will need to be addressed to ensure that future biomechanical research is clinically relevant and capable of improving the outcomes of challenging proximal humerus fracture patterns. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0627-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4520267/ /pubmed/26223275 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0627-x Text en © Cruickshank et al. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Cruickshank, David Lefaivre, Kelly A. Johal, Herman MacIntyre, Norma J. Sprague, Sheila A. Scott, Taryn Guy, Pierre Cripton, Peter A. McKee, Michael Bhandari, Mohit Slobogean, Gerard P. A scoping review of biomechanical testing for proximal humerus fracture implants |
title | A scoping review of biomechanical testing for proximal humerus fracture implants |
title_full | A scoping review of biomechanical testing for proximal humerus fracture implants |
title_fullStr | A scoping review of biomechanical testing for proximal humerus fracture implants |
title_full_unstemmed | A scoping review of biomechanical testing for proximal humerus fracture implants |
title_short | A scoping review of biomechanical testing for proximal humerus fracture implants |
title_sort | scoping review of biomechanical testing for proximal humerus fracture implants |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4520267/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26223275 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0627-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cruickshankdavid ascopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT lefaivrekellya ascopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT johalherman ascopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT macintyrenormaj ascopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT spraguesheilaa ascopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT scotttaryn ascopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT guypierre ascopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT criptonpetera ascopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT mckeemichael ascopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT bhandarimohit ascopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT slobogeangerardp ascopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT cruickshankdavid scopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT lefaivrekellya scopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT johalherman scopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT macintyrenormaj scopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT spraguesheilaa scopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT scotttaryn scopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT guypierre scopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT criptonpetera scopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT mckeemichael scopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT bhandarimohit scopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants AT slobogeangerardp scopingreviewofbiomechanicaltestingforproximalhumerusfractureimplants |