Study of the stress-deformation state of models of the humerus in cases of supracondylar oblique fractures in children and adolescents with different options of percutaneous fixation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15574/PS.2024.3(84).8694Keywords:
humerus, supracondylar fractures, osteosynthesisAbstract
Fractures of the distal epimetaphysis of the humerus in children and adolescents are one of the most common injuries, accounting for 16 to 50% of all bone fractures. Among the injuries of this location, supracondylar (3-18%) and transcondylar fractures (57.5-70%) prevail, mainly in children aged 6-7 years. A significant problem when using a crossed fixation structure is iatrogenic damage to the ulnar nerve (2-8%), which requires a mini-open technique of medial spica or sonographic monitoring.
Aim - to compare the level of stresses in the model of the humerus with a supracondylar oblique fracture with different options of percutaneous fixation under the influence of different loads.
Materials and methods. A basic finite-element model of the humerus was developed, on the basis of which a model of an oblique supracondylar fracture was created. Two versions of osteosynthesis were modeled: with two spikes arranged crosswise and a bundle of three spikes. The stress-strain state of the models was studied under the influence of tensile, bending and twisting loads.
Results. The presence of an oblique epicondylar fracture of the humerus leads to asymmetric changes in the distribution of stresses in the epicondyles above and below the fracture line during cross fixation with two spikes. With lateral fixation with three spikes under the influence of tensile load, the tension in the medial epicondylum is reduced to a minimum and their level on the lateral one is doubled. This is related to the one-sided conduction of a bundle of spikes. At the same time, the medial epicondyle remains unfixed and, accordingly, the loads on it are practically not transferred. The bone regenerate for this is too soft to prevent movement of the distal fragment. At the same time, a tighter fixation of the lateral epicondyle than in the version with two needles across, causes an increase in the level of stress in the lateral epicondyle. The total size of the cross-sectional area of the spike bundle with lateral fixation ensures a twice lower stress level in them, compared to cross fixation. Under bending loads, cross fixation with two spikes and lateral fixation with a bundle of three spikes work about the same. Under torsional loads, both methods of fixation of fragments of the humerus showed approximately the same results. In favor of the method of lateral fixation with a bundle of three spikes, the low level of stresses in the spikes can be attributed. The asymmetric arrangement of the bundle of three spokes during lateral fixation is compensated by the asymmetry of the passage of the fracture line. All this indicates that in the treatment of oblique supracondylar fractures of the humerus, both methods of fixation are equivalent from the point of view of stress distribution in the bone tissue, and the choice of one of them can be determined by other criteria.
Conclusions. Mathematical modeling of the humerus with a supracondylar oblique fracture did not determine significant advantages of one or another method of fixation. The asymmetric location of the spikes during lateral fixation of bone fragments is compensated by the asymmetry of the fracture line. In favor of the method of lateral fixation with a bundle of three spikes, the low level of stresses in the spikes can be attributed.
The research was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. The study protocol was approved by the Local Ethics Committee of participating institution. The informed consent of the patient was obtained for conducting the studies.
No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.
References
Afaque SF, Singh A, Maharjan R at al. (2020). Comparison of clinic-radiological outcome of cross pinning versus lateral pinning for displaced supracondylar fracture of humerus in children: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 11: 259-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2019.01.013; PMid:32099290 PMCid:PMC7026539
Boccaccio A, Pappalettere C. (2011). Mechanobiology of Fracture Healing: Basic Principles and Applications in Orthodontics and Orthopaedics. In: Theoretical Biomechanics. Prague: Intech Open. 2011: 21-48. https://doi.org/10.5772/19420
Cowin SC. (2001). Bone Mechanics Handbook. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press: 980. https://doi.org/10.1201/b14263; PMCid:PMC2190562
Hanim A, Wafiuddin M, Azfar MA et al. (2021). Biomechanical Analysis of Crossed Pinning Construct in Supracondylar Fracture of Humerus: Does the Point of Crossing Matter? Cureus. 13: 14043. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.14043; PMid:33898129 PMCid:PMC8059665
Kipa OA, Lytovchenko VO, Karpinskyi MYu. (2014). The choice of fixator for osteosynthesis of humerus fractures in victims with combined thoracic trauma. Medicine today and tomorrow. (4): 97-100.
Kurowski PM. (2007). Engineering Analysis with COSMOSWorks: SDC Publications: 263.
Niinomi M. (2008). Mechanical biocompatibilities of titanium alloys for biomedical applications. Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials. 1(1): 30-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2007.07.001; PMid:19627769
Oztermeli A, Karahan N, Kaya M. (2023). Is Lateral Onset Cross Pin Technique Strong Enough? A Biomechanical Study. The Medical Bulletin of Sisli Etfal Hospital. 57(4): 495. https://doi.org/10.14744/SEMB.2023.87528; PMid:38268650 PMCid:PMC10805040
Rao SS. (2017). The Finite Element Method in Engineering. Butterworth-Heinemann. 6th ed.:782.
Santos IA, Cruz MAF, Souza RC, Barreto LV da F, Monteiro AF, Rezende LGRA. (2024). Epidemiology of Supracondylar Fractures of the Humerus in Children. Archives of health investigation. 13(1): 18-23. https://doi.org/10.21270/archi.v13i1.6324
Tyazhelov O, Karpinsky M, Karpinska O, Subbota I, Vadyd K. (2011). A study of mechanical properties of osteosynthesis in metaphyseal fractures of the humerus on a mathematical model. Orthopedics, traumatology and prosthetics. (1): 35-39. https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-59872011135-39
Woo SL, Abramowitch SD, Kilger R, Liang R. (2006). Biomechanics of knee ligaments: injury, healing, and repair. Journal of biomechanics. 39(1): 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.10.025; PMid:16271583
Xing B, Dong B, Che X. (2023, Jan 16). Medial-lateral versus lateral-only pinning fixation in children with displaced supracondylar humeral fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res. 18(1): 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-03528-8; PMid:36647086 PMCid:PMC9841617
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Paediatric Surgery (Ukraine)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The policy of the Journal “PAEDIATRIC SURGERY. UKRAINE” is compatible with the vast majority of funders' of open access and self-archiving policies. The journal provides immediate open access route being convinced that everyone – not only scientists - can benefit from research results, and publishes articles exclusively under open access distribution, with a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 international license(СС BY-NC).
Authors transfer the copyright to the Journal “PAEDIATRIC SURGERY.UKRAINE” when the manuscript is accepted for publication. Authors declare that this manuscript has not been published nor is under simultaneous consideration for publication elsewhere. After publication, the articles become freely available on-line to the public.
Readers have the right to use, distribute, and reproduce articles in any medium, provided the articles and the journal are properly cited.
The use of published materials for commercial purposes is strongly prohibited.