Biomechanical investigation of arm position on deforming muscular forces in proximal humerus fractures.

BACKGROUND: Muscular forces drive proximal humeral fracture deformity, yet it is unknown if arm position can help mitigate such forces. Our hypothesis was that glenohumeral abduction and humeral internal rotation decrease the pull of the supraspinatus and subscapularis muscles, minimizing varus fracture deformity. METHODS: A medial wedge osteotomy was performed in eight cadaveric shoulders to simulate a two-part fracture. The specimens were tested on a custom shoulder testing system. Humeral head varus was measured following physiologic muscle loading at neutral and 20° humeral internal rotation at both 0° and 20° glenohumeral abduction. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in varus deformity caused by the subscapularis (p<0.05) at 20° abduction. Significantly increasing humeral internal rotation decreased varus deformity caused by the subscapularis (p<0.05) at both abduction angles and that caused by the supraspinatus (p<0.05) and infraspinatus (p<0.05) at 0° abduction only. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative shoulder abduction and internal rotation can be protective against varus failure following proximal humeral fracture fixation as these positions decrease tension on the supraspinatus and subscapularis muscles. Use of a resting sling that places the shoulder in this position should be considered.

Fixation of Extra-articular Proximal Tibia Fractures: Biomechanical Comparison of Single and Dual Implant Constructs.

OBJECTIVES: This biomechanical study seeks to define the relative effectiveness of contemporary single and dual implant constructs for fixation of an extra-articular proximal tibia fracture model. METHODS: An extra-articular proximal tibia fracture model was created using synthetic tibias. Four constructs were tested. Constructs included (1) lateral locked plate (LLP), (2) intramedullary nail (IMN), (3) combined LLP and IMN (PN), and (4) LLP and medial locked plate. Specimens were axially loaded through the medial plateau to evaluate construct stiffness and the ability to resist varus collapse. RESULTS: Dual implant constructs were stiffer than single implant constructs in this model. Although DP and PN were stiffer than IMN at all loads tested, the difference was notable only for DP at higher loads. Isolated LLP provided insufficient stability to be tested at higher loads. CONCLUSION: Dual plate fixation provides the greatest resistance to varus collapse. In the clinical setting, consideration must be given to the fracture morphology, desired construct stiffness, and soft-tissue envelope in selecting the optimal construct to be used.

Radiocapitellar Contact Characteristics After Osteochondral Defect Repair Using a Novel Hybrid Reconstructive Procedure.

Background: Many procedures to reconstruct osteochondral defects of the elbow radiocapitellar (RC) joint lack versatility or durability or do not directly address the subchondral bone structure and function. Purpose/Hypothesis: To biomechanically characterize the RC joint contact area, force, pressure, and peak pressure before and after reconstruction of osteochondral defects using a novel hybrid reconstructive procedure. It was hypothesized that the procedure would restore the contact characteristics to the intact condition. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 10 cadaveric elbows (mean age 67 ± 2.7 years) were dissected to isolate the humerus and radial head. RC contact area, contact force, mean contact pressure, and peak contact pressure were measured with the elbow at 45° of flexion and neutral forearm rotation at compressive loads of 25, 50, and 75 N. Osteochondral defects 8 and 11 mm in diameter were created at the center of the capitellum; the defects were then reconstructed with a titanium fenestrated threaded implant, countersunk in the subchondral bone, with an acellular dermal matrix allograft sutured in place on top of the implant. Five conditions (intact, 8-mm defect, 8-mm repair, 11-mm defect, and 11-mm repair) were tested and results were compared using repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results: Both 8- and 11-mm defects significantly increased RC mean contact pressure at all compressive loads (P ≤ .008) and significantly increased peak contact pressure at compressive loads of 50 and 75 N (P < .002) compared with the intact condition. Repair of the 8-mm defect significantly decreased RC mean contact pressure at 25- and 50-N loads (P ≤ .009) and significantly decreased peak contact pressure at 50- and 75-N loads (P ≤ .035) compared with the defect condition. Repair of the 11-mm defect decreased mean contact pressure significantly at all compressive loads (P ≤ .001) and peak contact pressure at 50- and 75-N loads (P < .044) compared with the defect condition. Conclusion: RC joint contact pressure was restored to intact conditions while avoiding increased peak contact pressure or edge loading after repairing osteochondral defects related to osteochondrosis with a novel hybrid reconstruction technique. Clinical Relevance: This hybrid procedure that addresses the entire osteochondral unit may provide a new treatment option for osteochondral defects.

Muscular Forces Responsible for Proximal Humeral Deformity After Fracture.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the contribution of each of the rotator cuff muscles and deltoid to fracture deformity in a 2-part proximal humerus fracture model. Our hypothesis was that superior cuff muscles would have the greatest contribution to coronal plane deformity, whereas muscles with anterior and posterior attachments would have the greatest contribution to axial and sagittal plane deformity. METHODS: A medial wedge osteotomy was created in 8 cadaveric shoulder specimens. A custom shoulder testing system was used to load each rotator cuff muscle and deltoid under increasing loading conditions. Fracture displacement was measured using a Microscribe digitizing system. The primary outcome was the contribution of each muscle to varus collapse. Secondary outcomes included contributions of each muscle to apex anterior/posterior deformity and humeral head anteversion/retroversion. RESULTS: Unbalanced loading of the supraspinatus resulted in the greatest varus deformity (34.5 ± 2.3 degrees), followed by the infraspinatus (22.3 ± 3.6 degrees) and subscapularis (21.7 ± 3.1 degree) (P < 0.05). Unbalanced loading of the subscapularis induced the greatest apex posterior (27.5 ± 4.8 degrees, P < 0.05) and retroversion (39.0 ± 5.6 degrees, P < 0.05) deformity, whereas the infraspinatus induced the greatest apex anterior (8.7 ± 3.4 degrees, P > 0.05) and anteversion (17.7 ± 5.7 degrees, P > 0.05) deformity. CONCLUSIONS: In this proximal humerus fracture model, the supraspinatus was the primary driver of varus deformity, whereas the subscapularis and infraspinatus contributed to apex posterior/retroversion and apex anterior/anteversion, respectively. The subscapularis and infraspinatus are also important secondary drivers of varus deformity. This study establishes a physiologically relevant fracture model that mimics in vivo conditions for future biomechanical testing.