Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
J Orthop Trauma. 2011 Jun;25(6):347-54. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181f8bf9b.
The open reduction and internal fixation of radial shaft fractures and osteotomies with standard 3.5-mm plates can be complicated by tendon irritation, hardware prominence, and fracture through the screw holes. With the advent of locking plate technology, implant companies and some surgeons have recommended expanding the indications for these devices; for example, using smaller, low-profile locking plates to suffice where a standard, larger plate would traditionally be used. We analyzed whether there is merit to this strategy. We hypothesized that, in an established cadaveric fracture fixation model, a smaller, low-profile plate with multiple locking screws could maintain adequate fixation stiffness with the potential to minimize hardware-related complications.
Seven matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaver radii were used. A 5-mm osteotomy gap was created at the midpoint of each specimen and the simulated fracture in one radius from each pair was fixed with a 3.5-mm plate and six nonlocking, standard screws. The contralateral radius was fixed using an equivalent-length 2.7-mm plate with eight locking screws. The radii were subjected to controlled bending and torsional loads and the bending and torsional stiffnesses were documented. Cyclic dorsal-to-volar bending was then applied and resistance to fatigue bending assessed.
The 2.7-mm locking plate was approximately one third as stiff as the 3.5-mm nonlocking plate (P < 0.02). Under physiological loading conditions, the 3.5-mm plate was superior to the 2.7-mm plate with respect to bending stiffness in all four directions, torsional stiffness in both directions, osteotomy gapping, and osteotomy angulation (P < 0.02 for all tests). The performance gap did not narrow with cyclic testing.
The theoretical structural benefit from the locking screws did not make up for the smaller size of the 2.7-mm plate. This held true in all bending planes, torsion, and cyclic loading, and outweighed any biologic differences between the specimens, including the presence or absence of osteoporosis. This is the first study to rigorously compare these two constructs and we conclude that the mechanical properties of the standard 3.5-mm plate are superior to the locking 2.7-mm plate in all regimes tested.
桡骨骨干骨折切开复位内固定和截骨术采用标准的 3.5mm 钢板固定,可能会导致肌腱刺激、金属突出和螺钉孔处骨折。随着锁定钢板技术的出现,一些植入物公司和外科医生已经建议扩大这些设备的适应证;例如,使用较小的低切迹锁定钢板来替代传统上使用的较大标准钢板。我们分析了这种策略是否有意义。我们假设,在一个已建立的尸体骨折固定模型中,较小的、低切迹的、带有多个锁定螺钉的钢板可以保持足够的固定刚度,并有可能最大限度地减少与硬件相关的并发症。
使用 7 对新鲜冷冻的尸体桡骨。在每个标本的中点创建 5mm 的骨切开间隙,每对标本中的一根桡骨模拟骨折,用 3.5mm 钢板和 6 个非锁定、标准螺钉固定。对侧桡骨用等效长度的 2.7mm 钢板和 8 个锁定螺钉固定。对桡骨进行受控弯曲和扭转加载,并记录弯曲和扭转刚度。然后施加背屈到掌屈的循环弯曲,并评估疲劳弯曲的阻力。
2.7mm 锁定钢板的刚度约为 3.5mm 非锁定钢板的三分之一(P < 0.02)。在生理负荷条件下,在所有四个方向的弯曲刚度、两个方向的扭转刚度、骨切开间隙和骨切开角度方面,3.5mm 钢板均优于 2.7mm 钢板(所有测试均为 P < 0.02)。循环测试并没有缩小性能差距。
锁定螺钉的理论结构优势并没有弥补 2.7mm 钢板的尺寸较小的问题。在所有弯曲平面、扭转和循环加载中都是如此,并且超过了标本之间的任何生物学差异,包括是否存在骨质疏松症。这是第一项严格比较这两种结构的研究,我们得出结论,标准 3.5mm 钢板的机械性能在所有测试中均优于锁定 2.7mm 钢板。