Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Hand Surg Am. 2018 Mar;43(3):221-228. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.10.005. Epub 2017 Nov 11.

Scaphoid Fracture Fixation in a Nonunion Model: A Biomechanical Study Comparing 3 Types of Fixation.

Author information

1
Division of Hand Surgery, Department of Orthopaedics, Monash University, Dandenong Hospital, Dandenong, Australia; Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
2
Division of Hand Surgery, Department of Orthopaedics, Monash University, Dandenong Hospital, Dandenong, Australia; Hand and Wrist Biomechanics Laboratory (HWBL), O'Brien Institute, St Vincent's Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Victorian Hand Surgery Associates, Fitzroy, Australia; Department of Surgery, Monash Medical Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
4
Division of Hand Surgery, Department of Orthopaedics, Monash University, Dandenong Hospital, Dandenong, Australia; Hand and Wrist Biomechanics Laboratory (HWBL), O'Brien Institute, St Vincent's Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Surgery, Monash Medical Centre, Monash University, Clayton, Australia; Melbourne Orthopaedic Group, Windsor, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: Eugene.ek@mog.com.au.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Union of a scaphoid fracture after fixation is influenced by various factors, one of which is fracture stability. This study aims to compare the biomechanical stability of 3 different types of scaphoid fracture fixation in a scaphoid nonunion model.

METHODS:

Thirty cadaveric scaphoid specimens were assigned to one of 3 different fixation groups: (1) single 3.0-mm compression screw, (2) two 2.2-mm screws, and (3) scaphoid plate. A 3-mm volar wedge osteotomy was created at the scaphoid waist to simulate a nonunion model. The primary outcome measure was load to failure, whereas secondary outcome measures were load to 2-mm displacement, energy absorbed, stiffness, and mode of failure, recorded by video and retrieval analysis.

RESULTS:

There was a significantly lower load to failure in the single screw construct compared with that in the double screw (mean difference 187.2 N) and plate fixation constructs (mean difference 150.7 N). The mean load to 2-mm displacement in the single screw construct (91.5 N) was also significantly lower than that in the double screw (181.8 N) and plate fixation constructs (197.2 N). There was a significantly lower stiffness with the single screw fixation compared with that of the double screws (mean difference 85.4 N/mm), and lower energy absorbed with single screws when compared with that of double screws (mean difference 386.5 mJ) and when compared with plate fixation (mean difference 270.8 mJ).

CONCLUSIONS:

In this biomechanical study comparing fixation methods using a model of scaphoid nonunion with bone loss, we found that double screws or plate fixation demonstrated significantly greater stability, stiffness, and energy absorption when compared with a single compression screw. We found no discernible differences between double screw fixation and the plate groups.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE:

The use of double screws or plate fixation in a nonunion setting may allow accelerated rehabilitation without compromise to fracture stability.

KEYWORDS:

Biomechanics; fixation; fracture; nonunion; scaphoid

PMID:
29132789
DOI:
10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.10.005
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center