Cargando…

Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Plate Configurations for Midshaft Clavicle Fracture Fixation: Single Plating Compared with Dual Mini-Fragment Plating

BACKGROUND: Dual-plate constructs have become an increasingly common fixation technique for midshaft clavicle fractures and typically involve the use of mini-fragment plates. The goal of this technique is to reduce plate prominence and implant irritation. However, limited biomechanical data exist fo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kitzen, Joep, Paulson, Kent, Korley, Robert, Duffy, Paul, Martin, C. Ryan, Schneider, Prism S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8901219/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35265785
http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.21.00123
_version_ 1784664313078743040
author Kitzen, Joep
Paulson, Kent
Korley, Robert
Duffy, Paul
Martin, C. Ryan
Schneider, Prism S.
author_facet Kitzen, Joep
Paulson, Kent
Korley, Robert
Duffy, Paul
Martin, C. Ryan
Schneider, Prism S.
author_sort Kitzen, Joep
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Dual-plate constructs have become an increasingly common fixation technique for midshaft clavicle fractures and typically involve the use of mini-fragment plates. The goal of this technique is to reduce plate prominence and implant irritation. However, limited biomechanical data exist for these lower-profile constructs. The study aim was to compare dual mini-fragment orthogonal plating with small-fragment clavicle plates for biomechanical noninferiority and to determine if an optimal plate configuration could be identified using a cadaveric model. METHODS: Twenty-four cadaveric clavicles were randomized to 1 of 6 groups, stratified by computed tomography-based bone mineral content (BMC): precontoured superior or anterior fixation using a single 3.5-mm Locking Compression Plate (LCP), and 4 different dual-plating constructs utilizing 2.4-mm and 2.7-mm Adaptation plates or LCPs. An inferior butterfly fracture was created. Axial, torsional, and bending (anterior and superior surface loading) stiffnesses were determined through nondestructive cyclic testing, followed by a load-to-failure test in 3-point superior surface bending. RESULTS: For axial stiffness, the 2 dual-plate constructs with a superior 2.4-mm and anterior 2.7-mm plate (either Adaptation or LCP) were significantly stiffer than the other 4 constructs (p = 0.021 and p = 0.034). For both superior and anterior bending, the superior 2.4-mm and anterior 2.7-mm plate constructs were significantly stiffer when compared with the 3.5-mm superior plate (p = 0.043). No significant differences were found in torsional stiffness or load to failure between the different constructs. CONCLUSIONS: Dual plating using mini-fragment plates is biomechanically superior for the fixation of midshaft clavicle fractures when compared with a single, superior, 3.5-mm plate and has biomechanical properties similar to those of a 3.5-mm plate placed anteriorly. With the exception of axial stiffness, no significant differences were found when different dual-plating constructs were compared with each other. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study validates the use of dual plating for midshaft clavicle fractures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8901219
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89012192022-03-08 Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Plate Configurations for Midshaft Clavicle Fracture Fixation: Single Plating Compared with Dual Mini-Fragment Plating Kitzen, Joep Paulson, Kent Korley, Robert Duffy, Paul Martin, C. Ryan Schneider, Prism S. JB JS Open Access Scientific Articles BACKGROUND: Dual-plate constructs have become an increasingly common fixation technique for midshaft clavicle fractures and typically involve the use of mini-fragment plates. The goal of this technique is to reduce plate prominence and implant irritation. However, limited biomechanical data exist for these lower-profile constructs. The study aim was to compare dual mini-fragment orthogonal plating with small-fragment clavicle plates for biomechanical noninferiority and to determine if an optimal plate configuration could be identified using a cadaveric model. METHODS: Twenty-four cadaveric clavicles were randomized to 1 of 6 groups, stratified by computed tomography-based bone mineral content (BMC): precontoured superior or anterior fixation using a single 3.5-mm Locking Compression Plate (LCP), and 4 different dual-plating constructs utilizing 2.4-mm and 2.7-mm Adaptation plates or LCPs. An inferior butterfly fracture was created. Axial, torsional, and bending (anterior and superior surface loading) stiffnesses were determined through nondestructive cyclic testing, followed by a load-to-failure test in 3-point superior surface bending. RESULTS: For axial stiffness, the 2 dual-plate constructs with a superior 2.4-mm and anterior 2.7-mm plate (either Adaptation or LCP) were significantly stiffer than the other 4 constructs (p = 0.021 and p = 0.034). For both superior and anterior bending, the superior 2.4-mm and anterior 2.7-mm plate constructs were significantly stiffer when compared with the 3.5-mm superior plate (p = 0.043). No significant differences were found in torsional stiffness or load to failure between the different constructs. CONCLUSIONS: Dual plating using mini-fragment plates is biomechanically superior for the fixation of midshaft clavicle fractures when compared with a single, superior, 3.5-mm plate and has biomechanical properties similar to those of a 3.5-mm plate placed anteriorly. With the exception of axial stiffness, no significant differences were found when different dual-plating constructs were compared with each other. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study validates the use of dual plating for midshaft clavicle fractures. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. 2022-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8901219/ /pubmed/35265785 http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.21.00123 Text en Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Scientific Articles
Kitzen, Joep
Paulson, Kent
Korley, Robert
Duffy, Paul
Martin, C. Ryan
Schneider, Prism S.
Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Plate Configurations for Midshaft Clavicle Fracture Fixation: Single Plating Compared with Dual Mini-Fragment Plating
title Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Plate Configurations for Midshaft Clavicle Fracture Fixation: Single Plating Compared with Dual Mini-Fragment Plating
title_full Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Plate Configurations for Midshaft Clavicle Fracture Fixation: Single Plating Compared with Dual Mini-Fragment Plating
title_fullStr Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Plate Configurations for Midshaft Clavicle Fracture Fixation: Single Plating Compared with Dual Mini-Fragment Plating
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Plate Configurations for Midshaft Clavicle Fracture Fixation: Single Plating Compared with Dual Mini-Fragment Plating
title_short Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Plate Configurations for Midshaft Clavicle Fracture Fixation: Single Plating Compared with Dual Mini-Fragment Plating
title_sort biomechanical evaluation of different plate configurations for midshaft clavicle fracture fixation: single plating compared with dual mini-fragment plating
topic Scientific Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8901219/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35265785
http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.21.00123
work_keys_str_mv AT kitzenjoep biomechanicalevaluationofdifferentplateconfigurationsformidshaftclaviclefracturefixationsingleplatingcomparedwithdualminifragmentplating
AT paulsonkent biomechanicalevaluationofdifferentplateconfigurationsformidshaftclaviclefracturefixationsingleplatingcomparedwithdualminifragmentplating
AT korleyrobert biomechanicalevaluationofdifferentplateconfigurationsformidshaftclaviclefracturefixationsingleplatingcomparedwithdualminifragmentplating
AT duffypaul biomechanicalevaluationofdifferentplateconfigurationsformidshaftclaviclefracturefixationsingleplatingcomparedwithdualminifragmentplating
AT martincryan biomechanicalevaluationofdifferentplateconfigurationsformidshaftclaviclefracturefixationsingleplatingcomparedwithdualminifragmentplating
AT schneiderprisms biomechanicalevaluationofdifferentplateconfigurationsformidshaftclaviclefracturefixationsingleplatingcomparedwithdualminifragmentplating