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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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