Reconstruction of Monteggia-like proximal ulna fractures using different fixation devices: A biomechanical study. Issue 8 (August 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wegmann, K.; Engel, K.; Skouras, E.; Hackl, M.; Müller, L.P.; Hopf, J.C.; Koslowsky, T.C.
• Is Part Of: Injury. Volume 47:Issue 8(2016)
• Page Start: 1636
• Page End: 1641
• Publication Date: 2016-08
• Subjects: Monteggia like proximal ulna fracture; Wounds and injuries -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Accidents -- Periodicals; Wounds and Injuries -- surgery -- Periodicals; Lésions et blessures -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; Electronic journals; 617.1
• DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2016.05.010
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0020-1383

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Comminuted proximal ulna fractures are rare and reconstruction of these fractures is discussed controversially. The aim of this study was to test three currently available plate devices in a standardized comminuted four-part fracture model created in proximal ulna sawbones. Material and methods: A standardized four-part fracture of the proximal ulna was created in 80 sawbones. Reconstruction was performed by five experienced test surgeons according to a standardized reconstruction protocol. Each surgeon reconstructed 4 fractures with a 3.5 mm eight-hole reconstruction plate, 4 fractures with seven-hole third-tubular double plates and 4 fractures with a 3.5 mm anatomical seven-hole locked angle proximal ulna plate. 4 more fractures were reconstructed with simple K-wires as a reference construct for further experiments. Outcome measurements were time for reconstruction, quality of reconstruction and stability of the reconstruction. Stability testing was done in 90° and 30° flexion of the elbow. Testing in 30° flexion was done to test the anteroposterior stability regarding the fixed coronoid process. Results: Time for reconstruction was significantly less for K-wire fixation than for the plate devices. Time for reconstruction plating and locked angle plating was significantly lower than for double plating (p < 0.005). Quality of reduction did not differ between the three plate systems (p < 0.05). K-wire fixation showed the best quality of reduction (p < 0.005). In 90° of elbow flexion the anatomic locked angle olecranon plate showed a significantly higher stability compared to the other devices. Furthermore the tubular double plating was significantly more stable than reconstruction plating or K-wire fixation (p < 0.05). In anteroposterior loading at 30°, the stability did not differ between the 4 different fixation techniques (p > 0.05). For all devices the testing in 30° flexion showed a significantly higher rigidity compared to 90° flexion. Conclusion: The locked angle plate system showed the highest stability in 90° of elbow flexion. Each implant was more stable in 30° flexion than in 90° flexion. Testing of the anterior stability of the elbow did not show any differences between the different implants. Because of the superior stability of this device, we conclude that locked angle plating should be preferred for reconstruction of monteggia like complex proximal ulna fractures.