Cargando…
Cow-hitch fixation in fracture hemiarthroplasty
BACKGROUND: The treatment of complex proximal humerus fractures with hemiarthroplasty is associated with a high failure rate due to secondary displacement of the tuberosities. It was the aim of this in-vitro study to compare the mechanical stability of tuberosity reattachment obtained with the so-ca...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8568993/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34766080 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2021.07.011 |
_version_ | 1784594552730943488 |
---|---|
author | Grubhofer, Florian Ernstbrunner, Lukas Bachmann, Elias Wieser, Karl Borbas, Paul Bouaicha, Samy Warner, Jon J.P. Gerber, Christian |
author_facet | Grubhofer, Florian Ernstbrunner, Lukas Bachmann, Elias Wieser, Karl Borbas, Paul Bouaicha, Samy Warner, Jon J.P. Gerber, Christian |
author_sort | Grubhofer, Florian |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The treatment of complex proximal humerus fractures with hemiarthroplasty is associated with a high failure rate due to secondary displacement of the tuberosities. It was the aim of this in-vitro study to compare the mechanical stability of tuberosity reattachment obtained with the so-called “Cow-Hitch” (CH) cerclage compared with conventional tuberosity reattachment. METHODS: A 4-part proximal humerus fracture was created in 10 fresh-frozen, human cadaveric shoulders. The greater and lesser tuberosity were reattached to the hemiarthroplasty stem with in total 4 CH Cerclages in the Cow-Hitch group. The conventional technique—recommended for the tested implant—was used in the control group using 6 sutures. A total of 5000 loading cycles with forces of 350N were applied, while motion (in mm) of the tuberosities was recorded in 3 directions (anteroposterior = AP, mediolateral = ML, inferosuperior = IS) with a telecentric camera. RESULTS: After 5000 loading cycles, the CH group showed less fragment displacement (AP: 2.3 ± 2.3 mm, ML: 1.8 ± 0.9 mm, IS: 1.3 ± 0.5 mm) than the conventional group (AP: 9.8 ± 12.3 mm, ML: 5.5 ± 5.6 mm, IS: 4.5 ± 4.7 mm). The differences were not statistically significant (AP: P = .241; ML: P = .159; IS: P = .216). The lesser tuberosity fragment displacement in the CH group after 5000 cycles was less in the AP (2.3 ± 3.3 vs. 4.0 ± 2.8, P = .359) and IS (1.9 ± 1.2 vs. 3.1 ± 1.8; P = .189) directions but higher in the ML direction (7.2 ± 5.7 vs 6.3 ± 3.6, P = .963). CONCLUSIONS: In-vitro, “Cow-Hitch” cerclage results in mean greater tuberosity displacements of 2 mm and reliably prevents displacements greater than 5 mm. In contrast, the conventional fixation technique yields unreliable, variable stability with low to complete displacement upon cyclical loading. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8568993 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85689932021-11-10 Cow-hitch fixation in fracture hemiarthroplasty Grubhofer, Florian Ernstbrunner, Lukas Bachmann, Elias Wieser, Karl Borbas, Paul Bouaicha, Samy Warner, Jon J.P. Gerber, Christian JSES Int Shoulder BACKGROUND: The treatment of complex proximal humerus fractures with hemiarthroplasty is associated with a high failure rate due to secondary displacement of the tuberosities. It was the aim of this in-vitro study to compare the mechanical stability of tuberosity reattachment obtained with the so-called “Cow-Hitch” (CH) cerclage compared with conventional tuberosity reattachment. METHODS: A 4-part proximal humerus fracture was created in 10 fresh-frozen, human cadaveric shoulders. The greater and lesser tuberosity were reattached to the hemiarthroplasty stem with in total 4 CH Cerclages in the Cow-Hitch group. The conventional technique—recommended for the tested implant—was used in the control group using 6 sutures. A total of 5000 loading cycles with forces of 350N were applied, while motion (in mm) of the tuberosities was recorded in 3 directions (anteroposterior = AP, mediolateral = ML, inferosuperior = IS) with a telecentric camera. RESULTS: After 5000 loading cycles, the CH group showed less fragment displacement (AP: 2.3 ± 2.3 mm, ML: 1.8 ± 0.9 mm, IS: 1.3 ± 0.5 mm) than the conventional group (AP: 9.8 ± 12.3 mm, ML: 5.5 ± 5.6 mm, IS: 4.5 ± 4.7 mm). The differences were not statistically significant (AP: P = .241; ML: P = .159; IS: P = .216). The lesser tuberosity fragment displacement in the CH group after 5000 cycles was less in the AP (2.3 ± 3.3 vs. 4.0 ± 2.8, P = .359) and IS (1.9 ± 1.2 vs. 3.1 ± 1.8; P = .189) directions but higher in the ML direction (7.2 ± 5.7 vs 6.3 ± 3.6, P = .963). CONCLUSIONS: In-vitro, “Cow-Hitch” cerclage results in mean greater tuberosity displacements of 2 mm and reliably prevents displacements greater than 5 mm. In contrast, the conventional fixation technique yields unreliable, variable stability with low to complete displacement upon cyclical loading. Elsevier 2021-09-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8568993/ /pubmed/34766080 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2021.07.011 Text en © 2021 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Shoulder Grubhofer, Florian Ernstbrunner, Lukas Bachmann, Elias Wieser, Karl Borbas, Paul Bouaicha, Samy Warner, Jon J.P. Gerber, Christian Cow-hitch fixation in fracture hemiarthroplasty |
title | Cow-hitch fixation in fracture hemiarthroplasty |
title_full | Cow-hitch fixation in fracture hemiarthroplasty |
title_fullStr | Cow-hitch fixation in fracture hemiarthroplasty |
title_full_unstemmed | Cow-hitch fixation in fracture hemiarthroplasty |
title_short | Cow-hitch fixation in fracture hemiarthroplasty |
title_sort | cow-hitch fixation in fracture hemiarthroplasty |
topic | Shoulder |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8568993/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34766080 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2021.07.011 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT grubhoferflorian cowhitchfixationinfracturehemiarthroplasty AT ernstbrunnerlukas cowhitchfixationinfracturehemiarthroplasty AT bachmannelias cowhitchfixationinfracturehemiarthroplasty AT wieserkarl cowhitchfixationinfracturehemiarthroplasty AT borbaspaul cowhitchfixationinfracturehemiarthroplasty AT bouaichasamy cowhitchfixationinfracturehemiarthroplasty AT warnerjonjp cowhitchfixationinfracturehemiarthroplasty AT gerberchristian cowhitchfixationinfracturehemiarthroplasty |