Cargando…

Role of Additional Inferomedial Supporting Screws in Osteoporotic 3-Part Proximal Humerus Fracture: Finite Element Analysis

INTRODUCTION: Importance of inferomedial supporting screws in preventing varus collapse has been investigated for the proximal humerus fracture. However, few studies reported the results of osteoporotic complex fracture. This study aimed to demonstrate the stress distribution pattern, particularly i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Hyojune, Lee, Wonhee, Choi, SeungHyun, Kholinne, Erica, Lee, Euisop, Alzahrani, Wael Mohammed, Koh, Kyoung Hwan, Jeon, In-Ho, Kim, Shinseok
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7649924/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33224551
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2151459320956958
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Importance of inferomedial supporting screws in preventing varus collapse has been investigated for the proximal humerus fracture. However, few studies reported the results of osteoporotic complex fracture. This study aimed to demonstrate the stress distribution pattern, particularly in osteoporotic 3-part proximal humerus fractures involving greater tuberosity (GT) with different screw configurations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the computed tomography (CT) images of 2 patients, who had osteoporosis and the other had normal bone density, 3-part fractures involving the GT, without medial support were reconstructed. To reflect the osteoporosis or real bone density, Hounsfield unit of CT scans were utilized. A force of 200 N was applied in 30° varus direction. The proximal screws were set in 2 ways: 6 screws without inferomedial supporting screws and 9 screws with inferomedial supporting screws. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of internal stress distribution were performed. RESULTS: The most proximal part area near humeral head vertex and near the 1st screw’s passage and tip had more stress concentrated in osteoporotic 3-part fractures. The stress distribution around the proximal screws was found near the GT fracture line and its lateral side, where the local max values located. Inferomedial supporting screws decreased these effects by changing the points to medial side from the GT. The ratio in osteoporotic bone model decreased to that in normal bone model when inferomedial supporting screws were applied (normal bone, 2.97%–1.30%; osteoporosis bone, 4.76%–1.71%). CONCLUSIONS: In osteoporotic 3-part proximal humerus fracture, the stress distribution was concentrated on the area near the humeral vertex, 1st row screw tips, and lateral side region from the GT fracture line. Moreover, inferomedial supporting screws ensured that the stress distribution is similar to that in normal bone setting, particularly in osteoporotic condition.