Interfragmentary Screws Versus Intramedullary Implants For Proximal Phalanx Fractures: A Biomechanical Study in Matched Hands.

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Thomas McQuillan, John Kopriva, Daniel Thompson, Jason Shah, John Seiler, Eric Wagner, Nina Suh
{"title":"Interfragmentary Screws Versus Intramedullary Implants For Proximal Phalanx Fractures: A Biomechanical Study in Matched Hands.","authors":"Thomas McQuillan, John Kopriva, Daniel Thompson, Jason Shah, John Seiler, Eric Wagner, Nina Suh","doi":"10.1016/j.jhsa.2025.02.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Displaced proximal phalanx fractures are common injuries that often require surgical intervention. Intramedullary screw (IMS) fixation has recently gained popularity as a minimally invasive approach, but the relative resistance to fracture displacement when undergoing early motion is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the stability of IMS fixation is comparable or superior to the stability of interfragmentary screws for oblique fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-four matched cadaveric specimens were cut to produce standardized 60° oblique fractures and then randomized to stabilization with a 2.4-mm IMS or two 1.5-mm interfragmentary cortical screws. Specimens were loaded at 20 N for 2,000 cycles to simulate flexor tendon range of motion and were then loaded to failure, where failure was defined as 3 mm of movement from initial position.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After 2,000 cycles of 20 N loading, the cortical screws averaged significantly less movement than the IMS screws, with movements of 0.7 mm and 1.3 mm, respectively. When loaded to failure, the cortical screws withstood slightly higher forces than the IMS, averaging 79.8 N and 65.4 N, respectively. Under cyclic loading, 1 cortical screw specimen and 2 IMS specimens failed before reaching the completion point of 2,000 cycles.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Two orthogonal interfragmentary screws demonstrate less displacement than the IMS after cyclic loading of oblique proximal phalanx fractures under physiologic loads. Two bicortical interfragmentary screws are a robust option for long-oblique fractures and may tolerate an early motion protocol.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>This study suggests that interfragmentary screws provide robust fixation of long-oblique proximal phalanx fractures. Given the initial displacement of intramedullary screws, further research should assess the role of canal fill, fracture morphology, and screw configuration on the selection of internal fixation strategy.</p>","PeriodicalId":54815,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand Surgery-American Volume","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand Surgery-American Volume","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2025.02.008","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Displaced proximal phalanx fractures are common injuries that often require surgical intervention. Intramedullary screw (IMS) fixation has recently gained popularity as a minimally invasive approach, but the relative resistance to fracture displacement when undergoing early motion is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the stability of IMS fixation is comparable or superior to the stability of interfragmentary screws for oblique fractures.

Methods: Twenty-four matched cadaveric specimens were cut to produce standardized 60° oblique fractures and then randomized to stabilization with a 2.4-mm IMS or two 1.5-mm interfragmentary cortical screws. Specimens were loaded at 20 N for 2,000 cycles to simulate flexor tendon range of motion and were then loaded to failure, where failure was defined as 3 mm of movement from initial position.

Results: After 2,000 cycles of 20 N loading, the cortical screws averaged significantly less movement than the IMS screws, with movements of 0.7 mm and 1.3 mm, respectively. When loaded to failure, the cortical screws withstood slightly higher forces than the IMS, averaging 79.8 N and 65.4 N, respectively. Under cyclic loading, 1 cortical screw specimen and 2 IMS specimens failed before reaching the completion point of 2,000 cycles.

Conclusions: Two orthogonal interfragmentary screws demonstrate less displacement than the IMS after cyclic loading of oblique proximal phalanx fractures under physiologic loads. Two bicortical interfragmentary screws are a robust option for long-oblique fractures and may tolerate an early motion protocol.

Clinical relevance: This study suggests that interfragmentary screws provide robust fixation of long-oblique proximal phalanx fractures. Given the initial displacement of intramedullary screws, further research should assess the role of canal fill, fracture morphology, and screw configuration on the selection of internal fixation strategy.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
10.50%
发文量
402
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Hand Surgery publishes original, peer-reviewed articles related to the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases and conditions of the upper extremity; these include both clinical and basic science studies, along with case reports. Special features include Review Articles (including Current Concepts and The Hand Surgery Landscape), Reviews of Books and Media, and Letters to the Editor.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信