Ryan Serbin,Marc Duemmler,Kirby Bonvillain,Kelsie Coe,Nahir A Habet,Susan Odum,Michael Paloski
{"title":"矢状对齐重要吗?从生物力学角度看小儿肱骨髁上骨折的钢钉固定。","authors":"Ryan Serbin,Marc Duemmler,Kirby Bonvillain,Kelsie Coe,Nahir A Habet,Susan Odum,Michael Paloski","doi":"10.1097/bpo.0000000000002809","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\r\nClosed manipulation and percutaneous pinning is standard of care for displaced supracondylar humerus fractures, yet the optimal pin configuration, particularly in the sagittal plane, is not well defined. This study evaluates how sagittal plane pin variations affect construct strength biomechanically.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nOne hundred synthetic pediatric humerus models were used to emulate supracondylar humerus fracture. The models were pinned using 4 different configurations uniformly divergent in the coronal plane with variations in the sagittal plane: (1) 2 diverging pins with the lateral pin anterior (n = 25), (2) 2 diverging pins with the lateral pin posterior (n = 25), (3) 2 parallel pins (n = 25), and (4) 3 parallel pins (n = 25). The models were tested under bending (flexion, extension, and varus) and rotational (internal and external) forces, measuring stiffness and torque. Statistical analyses identified significant differences across configurations.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nThe 2-pin parallel configuration (9.68 N/mm in extension, 8.76 N/mm in flexion, 0.14 N-m/deg in internal rotation, and 0.14 N-m/deg in external rotation) performed similarly to the 3-pin parallel setup (10.77 N/mm in extension, 7.78 N/mm in flexion, 0.16 N-m/deg in internal rotation, and 0.14 N-m/deg in external rotation), with no significant differences in stiffness. In contrast, both parallel configurations significantly outperformed the 2-pin anterior (5.22 N/mm in extension, 5.7 N/mm in flexion, 0.11 N-m/deg in internal rotation and 0.10 N-m/deg in external rotation) and posterior (9.86 N/mm in extension, 8.31 N/mm in flexion, 0.12N-m/deg in internal rotation, and 0.11 N-m/deg in external rotation) configurations in resisting deformation. No notable disparities were observed in varus loading among any configurations.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nThis study illuminates the sagittal plane's role in construct stability. It suggests that, when utilizing 2-pins, parallel configurations in the sagittal plane improve biomechanical stability. In addition, it suggests avoiding the lateral anterior pin configuration due to its biomechanical inferiority. Further research should assess ultimate strength and compare various 3-pin configurations to better delineate differences between 2-pin and 3-pin configurations regarding sagittal plane alignment.\r\n\r\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\r\nLevel III-biomechanical study.","PeriodicalId":16945,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Sagittal Alignment Matter? A Biomechanical Look at Pinning Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fractures.\",\"authors\":\"Ryan Serbin,Marc Duemmler,Kirby Bonvillain,Kelsie Coe,Nahir A Habet,Susan Odum,Michael Paloski\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/bpo.0000000000002809\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE\\r\\nClosed manipulation and percutaneous pinning is standard of care for displaced supracondylar humerus fractures, yet the optimal pin configuration, particularly in the sagittal plane, is not well defined. This study evaluates how sagittal plane pin variations affect construct strength biomechanically.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nOne hundred synthetic pediatric humerus models were used to emulate supracondylar humerus fracture. The models were pinned using 4 different configurations uniformly divergent in the coronal plane with variations in the sagittal plane: (1) 2 diverging pins with the lateral pin anterior (n = 25), (2) 2 diverging pins with the lateral pin posterior (n = 25), (3) 2 parallel pins (n = 25), and (4) 3 parallel pins (n = 25). The models were tested under bending (flexion, extension, and varus) and rotational (internal and external) forces, measuring stiffness and torque. Statistical analyses identified significant differences across configurations.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nThe 2-pin parallel configuration (9.68 N/mm in extension, 8.76 N/mm in flexion, 0.14 N-m/deg in internal rotation, and 0.14 N-m/deg in external rotation) performed similarly to the 3-pin parallel setup (10.77 N/mm in extension, 7.78 N/mm in flexion, 0.16 N-m/deg in internal rotation, and 0.14 N-m/deg in external rotation), with no significant differences in stiffness. In contrast, both parallel configurations significantly outperformed the 2-pin anterior (5.22 N/mm in extension, 5.7 N/mm in flexion, 0.11 N-m/deg in internal rotation and 0.10 N-m/deg in external rotation) and posterior (9.86 N/mm in extension, 8.31 N/mm in flexion, 0.12N-m/deg in internal rotation, and 0.11 N-m/deg in external rotation) configurations in resisting deformation. No notable disparities were observed in varus loading among any configurations.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nThis study illuminates the sagittal plane's role in construct stability. It suggests that, when utilizing 2-pins, parallel configurations in the sagittal plane improve biomechanical stability. In addition, it suggests avoiding the lateral anterior pin configuration due to its biomechanical inferiority. Further research should assess ultimate strength and compare various 3-pin configurations to better delineate differences between 2-pin and 3-pin configurations regarding sagittal plane alignment.\\r\\n\\r\\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\\r\\nLevel III-biomechanical study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16945,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/bpo.0000000000002809\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/bpo.0000000000002809","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Does Sagittal Alignment Matter? A Biomechanical Look at Pinning Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fractures.
OBJECTIVE
Closed manipulation and percutaneous pinning is standard of care for displaced supracondylar humerus fractures, yet the optimal pin configuration, particularly in the sagittal plane, is not well defined. This study evaluates how sagittal plane pin variations affect construct strength biomechanically.
METHODS
One hundred synthetic pediatric humerus models were used to emulate supracondylar humerus fracture. The models were pinned using 4 different configurations uniformly divergent in the coronal plane with variations in the sagittal plane: (1) 2 diverging pins with the lateral pin anterior (n = 25), (2) 2 diverging pins with the lateral pin posterior (n = 25), (3) 2 parallel pins (n = 25), and (4) 3 parallel pins (n = 25). The models were tested under bending (flexion, extension, and varus) and rotational (internal and external) forces, measuring stiffness and torque. Statistical analyses identified significant differences across configurations.
RESULTS
The 2-pin parallel configuration (9.68 N/mm in extension, 8.76 N/mm in flexion, 0.14 N-m/deg in internal rotation, and 0.14 N-m/deg in external rotation) performed similarly to the 3-pin parallel setup (10.77 N/mm in extension, 7.78 N/mm in flexion, 0.16 N-m/deg in internal rotation, and 0.14 N-m/deg in external rotation), with no significant differences in stiffness. In contrast, both parallel configurations significantly outperformed the 2-pin anterior (5.22 N/mm in extension, 5.7 N/mm in flexion, 0.11 N-m/deg in internal rotation and 0.10 N-m/deg in external rotation) and posterior (9.86 N/mm in extension, 8.31 N/mm in flexion, 0.12N-m/deg in internal rotation, and 0.11 N-m/deg in external rotation) configurations in resisting deformation. No notable disparities were observed in varus loading among any configurations.
CONCLUSIONS
This study illuminates the sagittal plane's role in construct stability. It suggests that, when utilizing 2-pins, parallel configurations in the sagittal plane improve biomechanical stability. In addition, it suggests avoiding the lateral anterior pin configuration due to its biomechanical inferiority. Further research should assess ultimate strength and compare various 3-pin configurations to better delineate differences between 2-pin and 3-pin configurations regarding sagittal plane alignment.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III-biomechanical study.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics is a leading journal that focuses specifically on traumatic injuries to give you hands-on on coverage of a fast-growing field. You''ll get articles that cover everything from the nature of injury to the effects of new drug therapies; everything from recommendations for more effective surgical approaches to the latest laboratory findings.