Rühmann Oliver, Kirsch Ludger, Büch Sara, Kirschner Stephan, Bohnsack Michael, Wirth Carl Joachim
Orthopaedic Department, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 Jan-Feb;14(1):51-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.05.007.
There are no biomechanical studies available concerned with the primary stability of shoulder arthrodesis. The aim of our biomechanical investigations was to ascertain a minimal material combination with high primary stability for shoulder arthrodesis. For that purpose, the primary stability of 6 different forms of screw arthrodesis was investigated under the stress of abduction, adduction, anteversion, and retroversion. The mean values of the screw arthrodeses were compared with those of a 16-hole plate arthrodesis. All tests were carried out on 24 human specimens without destruction by use of a materials testing machine. The most stable form of screw arthrodesis for the load directions of abduction, adduction, anteversion, and retroversion results from a specific configuration of screws comprising 3 horizontal humeroglenoid screws and 3 vertical acromiohumeral screws (318.5 +/- 99.0 N). For three forms of arthrodesis, each with 3 humerus-glenoid screws (299.9 +/- 95.4 N), no significant difference (P = .530) was found compared with a 16-hole plate arthrodesis (293.4 +/- 89.3 N). The plate arthrodeses only achieved higher power values on abduction and adduction stress in comparison with screw arthrodesis with 3 humerus-glenoid screws. The difference was insignificant. Because arthrodesis with 3 humerus-glenoid screws was significantly more stable on stress of anteversion and retroversion, this particular screw arthrodesis is considered superior to plate arthrodeses. The use of the most stable form of screw arthrodesis may reduce nonunion.
目前尚无关于肩关节融合术初始稳定性的生物力学研究。我们生物力学研究的目的是确定一种具有高初始稳定性的最小材料组合用于肩关节融合术。为此,在外展、内收、前屈和后伸应力下研究了6种不同形式的螺钉融合术的初始稳定性。将螺钉融合术的平均值与16孔钢板融合术的平均值进行比较。所有测试均在24个未被破坏的人体标本上使用材料试验机进行。对于外展、内收、前屈和后伸的负荷方向,最稳定的螺钉融合术形式是由3枚水平肱骨盂螺钉和3枚垂直肩峰肱骨螺钉组成的特定螺钉配置(318.5±99.0 N)。对于三种均有3枚肱骨盂螺钉的融合术形式(299.9±95.4 N),与16孔钢板融合术(293.4±89.3 N)相比,未发现显著差异(P = 0.530)。与具有3枚肱骨盂螺钉的螺钉融合术相比,钢板融合术仅在外展和内收应力时获得更高的力量值。差异不显著。由于具有3枚肱骨盂螺钉的融合术在前屈和后伸应力时明显更稳定,这种特定的螺钉融合术被认为优于钢板融合术。使用最稳定形式的螺钉融合术可能会减少骨不连。