Pullout strength of monocortical and bicortical screws in meta -physeal and diaphyseal regions of the canine humerus

Denty Paul Vaughn; Jason Alan Syrcle; John E. Ball; Steven H. Elder; Jennifer Michele Gambino; Russell L. Griffin; Ronald M. McLaughlin

doi:10.3415/VCOT-15-11-0192

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Table of Contents

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2016; 29(06): 466-474
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-15-11-0192

Original Research

Schattauer GmbH

Pullout strength of monocortical and bicortical screws in meta -physeal and diaphyseal regions of the canine humerus

Authors

Denty Paul Vaughn

¹Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA
Jason Alan Syrcle

¹Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA
John E. Ball

²Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA
Steven H. Elder

³Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, College of Engineering, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA
Jennifer Michele Gambino

¹Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA
Russell L. Griffin

⁴Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Ronald M. McLaughlin

¹Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA

Abstract

Summary

Objective: Monocortical screws are commonly employed in locking plate fixation, but specific recommendations for their placement are lacking and use of short monocortical screws in metaphyseal bone may be contra indicated. Objectives of this study were to evaluate axial pullout strength of two different lengths of monocortical screws placed in various regions of the canine humerus compared to bicortical screws, and to derive cortical thickness and bone density values for those regions using quantitative computed tomography analysis (QCT).

Methods: The QCT analysis was performed on 36 cadaveric canine humeri for six regions of interest (ROI). A bicortical, short monocortical, or 50% transcortical 3.5 mm screw was implanted in each ROI and axial pullout testing was performed.

Results: Bicortical screws were stronger than monocortical screws in all ROI except the lateral epicondylar crest. Short monocortical metaphyseal screws were weaker than those placed in other regions. The 50% transcortical screws were stronger than the short monocortical screws in the condyle. A linear relationship between screw length and pull-out strength was observed.

Clinical significance: Cortical thickness and bone density measurements were obtained from multiple regions of the canine humerus using QCT. Use of short monocortical screws may contribute to failure of locking plate fixation of humeral fractures, especially when placed in the condyle. When bicortical screw placement is not possible, maximizing monocortical screw length may optimize fixation stability for distal humeral fractures.

Keywords

Canine humerus - screw pullout strength - bone mineral density - monocortical screw fixation - quantitative computed tomography

Full Text

References

References
1 Kraus KH, Ness MG. SOP interlocking plate system. Standard operating procedure [Company Product Information]. Version 1.4 Orthomed (UK) ltd; October 2007 [Cited on June 24, 2014]. Pg. 1-20 Available from: http://www.orthomed.co.uk/pdf-downloads.html
2 Khalid M, Theivendran K, Cheema M. et al. Biomechanical comparison of pull-out force of unicortical versus bicortical screws in proximal phalanges of the hand: a human cadaveric study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2008; 23: 1136-1140.
3 Gautier E, Sommer C. Guidelines for the clinical application of the LCP. Injury 2003; 34 (Suppl. 02) B63-76.
4 Seebeck J, Goldhahn J, Stadele H. et al. Effect of cortical thickness and cancellous bone density on the holding strength of internal fixator screws. J Orthop Res 2004; 22: 1237-1242.
5 Hurt RJ, Syrcle JA, Elder S. et al. A biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral string-of-pearls locking plates in a canine distal humeral metaphyseal gap model. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2014; 27: 186-191.
6 Diederichs G, Issever AS, Greiner S. et al. Three-dimensional distribution of trabecular bone density and cortical thickness in the distal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009; 18: 399-407.
7 Seebeck J, Goldhahn J, Morlock MM. et al. Mechanical behaviour of screws in normal and osteoporotic bone. Osteoporos Int 2005; 16 (Suppl. 02) S107-111.
8 Lenz M, Perren SM, Gueorguiev B. et al. Mechanical behaviour of fixation components for periprosthetic fracture surgery. Clin Biomech 2013; 28: 988-993.
9 Lenz M, Perren SM, Gueorguiev B. et al. A biomechanical study on proximal plate fixation techniques in periprosthetic femur fractures. Injury 2014; 45 (Suppl. 01) S71-75.
10 Engelke K, Libanati C, Liu Y. et al. Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) of the forearm using general purpose spiral whole-body CT scanners: accuracy, precision and comparison with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Bone 2009; 45: 110-118.
11 Park SH, Kim SJ, Park BC. et al. Three-dimensional osseous micro-architecture of the distal humerus: implications for internal fixation of osteoporotic fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010; 19: 244-250.
12 Tingart MJ, Lehtinen J, Zurakowski D. et al. Proximal humeral fractures: regional differences in bone mineral density of the humeral head affect the fixation strength of cancellous screws. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2006; 15: 620-624.
13 ASTM F 543-13., Standard Specification and Test Methods for Metallic Medical Bone Screws, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013 Available from: http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/resolver.cgi?F543-13
14 Chan TF, Vese LA. Active contours without edges. IEEE Trans Image Process 2001; 10: 266-277.
15 Sahiner B, Chan HP, Petrick N. et al. Computerized characterization of masses on mammograms: the rubber band straightening transform and texture analysis. Med Physics 1998; 25: 516-526.
16 Huber MB, Carballido-Gamio J, Bauer JS. et al. Proximal femur specimens: automated 3D trabecular bone mineral density analysis at multidetector CT—correlation with biomechanical strength measurement. Radiology 2008; 247: 472-481.
17 Adams JE. Quantitative computed tomography. Eur J Radiol 2009; 71: 415-424.
18 Krappinger D, Roth T, Gschwentner M. et al. Preoperative assessment of the cancellous bone mineral density of the proximal humerus using CT data. Skeletal Radiol 2012; 41: 299-304.