FIXATION METHODS IN LATARJET: BIOMECHANICAL COMPARISON OF SCREW TYPES AND PLATE FIXATION.

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Acta Ortopedica Brasileira Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1590/1413-785220233102e260966
Ufuk Arzu, Mehmet Ersin, Mehmet Chodza, Koray Şahin, Önder Kiliçoğlu, Ali Erşen
{"title":"FIXATION METHODS IN LATARJET: BIOMECHANICAL COMPARISON OF SCREW TYPES AND PLATE FIXATION.","authors":"Ufuk Arzu,&nbsp;Mehmet Ersin,&nbsp;Mehmet Chodza,&nbsp;Koray Şahin,&nbsp;Önder Kiliçoğlu,&nbsp;Ali Erşen","doi":"10.1590/1413-785220233102e260966","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Latarjet procedure is often preferred in recurrent shoulder dislocations accompanied by glenoid bone loss. It is observed that the superiority of bone graft fixation methods is still controversial. The aim of this study is to biomechanically compare the bone graft fixation methods in the Latarjet procedure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>15 third-generation scapula bone models were divided into 3 groups. Graft was fixated in the first group with fully-threaded cortical screws of 3.5mm diameter, in the second group two 16 mm partially-threaded cannulated screws of 4.5mm diameter, and in the third group via a mini plate and screw. The hemispherical humeral head was placed on the tip of the cyclic charge device, and thus, the charge applied to the coracoid graft was homogeneous.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No statistically significant difference was found between paired comparisons (p>0.05). The forces in 5 mm displacement in total vary between 502-857N. Total stiffness measurements ranged between 105 and 625; the mean value was 258.13±53.54 with no statistically significant difference by groups (p = 0.958).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This biomechanical study showed that there is no difference between three coracoid fixation options in terms of fixation strength. Unlike previous assumptions, plate fixation is not biomechanically superior to screw fixation. Surgeons should consider their personal preferences and experience in choosing fixation methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":55563,"journal":{"name":"Acta Ortopedica Brasileira","volume":"31 spe2","pages":"e260966"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10263413/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Ortopedica Brasileira","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-785220233102e260966","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objective: Latarjet procedure is often preferred in recurrent shoulder dislocations accompanied by glenoid bone loss. It is observed that the superiority of bone graft fixation methods is still controversial. The aim of this study is to biomechanically compare the bone graft fixation methods in the Latarjet procedure.

Methods: 15 third-generation scapula bone models were divided into 3 groups. Graft was fixated in the first group with fully-threaded cortical screws of 3.5mm diameter, in the second group two 16 mm partially-threaded cannulated screws of 4.5mm diameter, and in the third group via a mini plate and screw. The hemispherical humeral head was placed on the tip of the cyclic charge device, and thus, the charge applied to the coracoid graft was homogeneous.

Results: No statistically significant difference was found between paired comparisons (p>0.05). The forces in 5 mm displacement in total vary between 502-857N. Total stiffness measurements ranged between 105 and 625; the mean value was 258.13±53.54 with no statistically significant difference by groups (p = 0.958).

Conclusion: This biomechanical study showed that there is no difference between three coracoid fixation options in terms of fixation strength. Unlike previous assumptions, plate fixation is not biomechanically superior to screw fixation. Surgeons should consider their personal preferences and experience in choosing fixation methods.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
斜椎弓根内固定方法:螺钉与钢板固定的生物力学比较。
目的:Latarjet手术是复发性肩关节脱位伴肩关节骨丢失的首选手术方法。观察到骨移植固定方法的优越性仍存在争议。本研究的目的是比较Latarjet手术中不同植骨固定方法的生物力学性能。方法:15只第三代肩胛骨模型分为3组。第一组使用直径3.5mm的全螺纹皮质螺钉固定移植物,第二组使用直径4.5mm的16 mm部分螺纹空心螺钉固定移植物,第三组使用微型钢板和螺钉固定移植物。半球形肱骨头放置在循环装药装置的尖端,因此,施加于喙骨移植物的装药是均匀的。结果:两两比较差异无统计学意义(p>0.05)。总位移5mm的力在502-857N之间变化。总刚度测量范围在105和625之间;平均值为258.13±53.54,组间差异无统计学意义(p = 0.958)。结论:本生物力学研究表明,三种冠状骨固定方案在固定强度方面没有差异。与先前的假设不同,钢板固定在生物力学上并不优于螺钉固定。外科医生在选择固定方法时应考虑他们的个人喜好和经验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
14.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊介绍: A Revista Acta Ortopédica Brasileira, órgão oficial do Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (DOT/FMUSP), é publicada bimestralmente em seis edições ao ano (jan/fev, mar/abr, maio/jun, jul/ago, set/out e nov/dez) com versão em inglês disponível nos principais indexadores nacionais e internacionais e instituições de ensino do Brasil. Sendo hoje reconhecidamente uma importante contribuição para os especialistas da área com sua seriedade e árduo trabalho para as indexações já conquistadas.
期刊最新文献
OUTCOMES OF SURGICAL TREATMENT OF DIAPHYSEAL FEMUR FRACTURES IN POLYTRAUMATIZED CHILDREN. COMBINED TECHNIQUES OF CAUDAL EPIDURAL BLOCK AND TRANSFORAMINAL NERVE ROOT BLOCK IN THE TREATMENT OF DEGENERATIVE DISEASES OF THE LUMBAR SPINE: A COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS. DECREASED SURGICAL DURATION, LESS COMPLICATIONS, AND FASTER RETURN TO ACTIVITIES ACROSS THE LEARNING CURVE FOR THE ARTHROSCOPIC LATARJET TECHNIQUE. EPIDEMIOLOGICAL PROFILE OF PATIENTS WITH TIBIA DIAPHYSIS FRACTURE TREATED AT A TERTIARY LEVEL HOSPITAL. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE IN ONCOLOGIC-ORTHOPEDIC STUDIES - ACTA ORTOP BRAS (1993-2022).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1