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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grubhofer, Florian, Ernstbrunner, Lukas, Bachmann, Elias, Wieser, Karl, Borbas, Paul, Bouaicha, Samy, Warner, Jon J.P., Gerber, Christian
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