• Injury · Mar 2012

    Reconstruction of a Bryan and Morrey type I capitellar fracture in a sawbone model with four different fixation devices: an experimental study.

    • Thomas C Koslowsky, Christian Zilleken, Jens Dargel, Ulrich Thelen, Klaus J Burkhart, Steffen Heck, and Emmanouil Skouras.
    • Department of Surgery, St. Elisabeth Hospital, Werthmannstrasse 1, D-50935 Cologne, Germany. tkoslowsky@web.de
    • Injury. 2012 Mar 1;43(3):381-5.

    BackgroundWe evaluated 4 different fixation devices for the reconstruction of a standardised Bryan and Morrey capitellar shear fracture in a sawbone model. Outcome measurements were the quality of reduction, time for reconstruction and stability.Methods80 standardised Bryan and Morrey type I fractures were created for 5 different orthopaedic surgeons in 80 sawbones. Each surgeon reconstructed 16 fractures with 2mm K-wires, 3mm Herbert screws, 2.7 mm AO screws and 2.2mm fine-threaded wires (Fragment Fixation System: FFS). 4 fractures were allocated to each method with a standardised reconstruction procedure. Quality of reduction and time for reconstruction were measured after definitive fixation. Biomechanical testing was performed using a shear loading model with the application of monocyclic or polycyclic stress to the reconstructed capitulum.ResultsThere was no difference in the quality of reduction with the different fixation devices. Herbert and AO screw fixation was slower than the other implants (p<0.05). No difference in the time for reconstruction was observed with K-wires and FFS. Failure load was less for K-wires compared to FFS, Herbert screws and AO screws (p<0.05). With polycyclic loading, residual deformation was higher with K-wire reconstruction compared to FFS, Herbert screws and AO screws (p<0.05).ConclusionWhen using four different fixation devices, the fixation of standardised Bryan and Morrey type I fractures in the sawbone model differs when it comes to the time needed for reduction, but not in the quality of reduction. Stability was the same for the implants used, except for the K-wires. There is no argument in favour one of the screw implants over another in clinical use.Crown Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.