Biomechanical design optimization of distal femur locked plates: A review

Biomechanical testing of a computationally optimized far cortical locking plate versus traditional implants for distal femur fracture repair

BACKGROUND

This study experimentally validated a computationally optimized screw number and screw distribution far cortical locking distal femur fracture plate and compared the results to traditional implants.

METHODS

24 artificial femurs were osteotomized with a 10 mm fracture gap 60 mm proximal to the intercondylar notch. Three fixation constructs were used. (i) Standard locking plates secured with three far cortical locking screws inserted according to a previously optimized distribution in the femur shaft (n = 8). (ii) Standard locking plates secured with four standard locking screws inserted in alternating plate holes in the femur shaft (n = 8). (iii) Retrograde intramedullary nail secured proximally with one anterior-posterior screw and distally with two oblique screws (n = 8). Axial hip forces (700 and 2800 N) were applied while measuring axial interfragmentary motion, shear interfragmentary motion, and overall stiffness.

FINDINGS

Experimental far cortical locking plate results compared well to published computational findings. Far cortical locking femurs contained the highest axial motion within the potential ideal range of 0.2-1 mm and a sheer-to-axial motion ratio < 1.6 at toe-touch weight-bearing (700 N). At full weight-bearing (2800 N), Standard locking-plated femurs had the only axial motion within 0.2-1 mm but had an excess shear-to-axial motion ratio. Nail-implanted femurs underperformed at both forces.

INTERPRETATION

For toe-touch weight-bearing, the far cortical locking construct provided optimal biomechanics to allow moderate motion, which has been suggested to encourage early callus formation. Conversely, at full weight-bearing, the standard locking construct offered the biomechanical advantage on fracture motion.

Biomechanical Design Optimization of Distal Humerus Fracture Plates: A Review

The goal of this article was to review studies on distal humerus fracture plates (DHFPs) to understand the biomechanical influence of systematically changing the plate or screw variables. The problem is that DHFPs are commonly used surgically, although complications can still occur, and it is unclear if implant configurations are always optimized using biomechanical criteria. A systematic search of the PubMed database was conducted to identify English-language biomechanical optimization studies of DHFPs that parametrically altered plate and/or screw variables to analyze their influence on engineering performance. Intraarticular and extraarticular fracture (EAF) data were separated and organized under commonly used biomechanical outcome metrics. The results identified 52 eligible DHFP studies, which evaluated various plate and screw variables. The most common plate variables evaluated were geometry, hole type, number, and position. Fewer studies assessed screw variables, with number and angle being the most common. However, no studies examined nonmetallic materials for plates or screws, which may be of interest in future research. Also, articles used various combinations of biomechanical outcome metrics, such as interfragmentary fracture motion, bone, plate, or screw stress, number of loading cycles to failure, and overall stiffness (Os) or failure strength (Fs). However, no study evaluated the bone stress under the plate to examine bone "stress shielding," which may impact bone health clinically. Surgeons treating intraarticular and extraarticular distal humerus fractures should seriously consider two precontoured, long, thick, locked, and parallel plates that are secured by long, thick, and plate-to-plate screws that are located at staggered levels along the proximal parts of the plates, as well as an extra transfracture plate screw. Also, research engineers could improve new studies by perusing recommendations in future work (e.g., studying alternative nonmetallic materials or "stress shielding"), clinical ramifications (e.g., benefits of locked plates), and study quality (e.g., experimental validation of computational studies).

Biomechanical design optimization of proximal humerus locked plates: A review

BACKGROUND

Proximal humerus locked plates (PHLPs) are widely used for fracture surgery. Yet, non-union, malunion, infection, avascular necrosis, screw cut-out (i.e., perforation), fixation failure, and re-operation occur. Most biomechanical investigators compare a specific PHLP configuration to other implants like non-locked plates, nails, wires, and arthroplasties. However, it is unknown whether the PHLP configuration is biomechanically optimal according to some well-known biomechanical criteria. Therefore, this is the first review of the systematic optimization of plate and/or screw design variables for improved PHLP biomechanical performance.

METHODS

The PubMed website was searched for papers using the terms "proximal humerus" or "shoulder" plus "biomechanics/biomechanical" plus "locked/locking plates". PHLP papers were included if they were (a) optimization studies that systematically varied plate and screw variables to determine their influence on PHLP's biomechanical performance; (b) focused on plate and screw variables rather than augmentation techniques (i.e., extra implants, bone struts, or cement); (c) published after the year 2000 signaling the commercial availability of locked plate technology; and (d) written in English.

RESULTS

The 41 eligible papers involved experimental testing and/or finite element modeling. Plate variables investigated by these papers were geometry, material, and/or position, while screw variables studied were number, distribution, angle, size, and/or threads. Numerical outcomes given by these papers included stiffness, strength, fracture motion, bone and implant stress, and/or the number of loading cycles to failure. But, no paper fully optimized any plate or screw variable for a PHLP by simultaneously applying four well-established biomechanical criteria: (a) allow controlled fracture motion for early callus generation; (b) reduce bone and implant stress below the material's ultimate stress to prevent failure; (c) maintain sufficient bone-plate interface stress to reduce bone resorption (i.e., stress shielding); and (d) increase the number of loading cycles before failure for a clinically beneficial lifespan (i.e., fatigue life). Finally, this review made suggestions for future work, identified clinical implications, and assessed the quality of the papers reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying biomechanical optimization criteria can assist biomedical engineers in designing or evaluating PHLPs, so orthopaedic surgeons can have superior PHLP constructs for clinical use.