Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of a ready-to-use calcium phosphate cement implanted to augment intramedullary nail fixation of a three-part humeral head fracture model

Abstract

The aim of this study was the dynamic biomechanical evaluation of a ready-to-use oil-based calcium phosphate cement paste implanted to augment intramedullary nail fixation of a three-part humeral head fracture model. Fractures in the osteoporotic bone are often fractures of the proximal humerus. Secondary fracture displacements due to cut-out in osteoporotic bone have been observed in up to 13% of cases. Procedures have been developed to augment fracture fixation with polymethylmethacrylate to increase stability, but there are still unsolved challenges relating to its material-specific properties. Calcium phosphate cement could be a biological alternative in the augmentation of osteoporotic fractures because of its more favourable material properties. Fracture fixation was performed on eight pairs of human cadaveric bones to stabilize a standardized three-part humeral head fracture model by implantation of the Targon^® PH (Braun–Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany) intramedullary nail and insertion of three head screws and two bicortical shaft screws. The procedure was randomized, and one bone of each pair received calcium phosphate cement augmentation. Custom-made cannulated screws with an open lateral slot facilitated augmentation, making it possible to cement the threaded portion of the screw (1-mL calcium phosphate cement/screw). After the calcium phosphate cement had hardened, the humeri were subjected to dynamic axial loading. Load was progressively increased, monitored by ultrasound-based motion analysis, and total deformation was recorded. Load testing continued until implant failure. The augmented group withstood significantly more cycles before implant failure. The average initial stiffness showed a significant difference between the two study groups. Ultrasonic sensor technology was used to measure angular displacement during testing and a significant difference was found. Calcium phosphate cement offers a potential alternative to implant augmentation in the treatment of osteoporotic humeral head fractures. Future studies are required to confirm these observations clinically in vivo.

Keywords

Proximal humerus fracture osteoporosis augmentation calcium phosphate cement nail fixation biomechanical testing/analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Burkhart

Dietz

Bastian

et al . The treatment of proximal humeral fracture in adults. Dtsch Ärztebl Int 2013; 110(35–36): 591–597.

Bengnér

Johnell

Redlund-Johnell

. Changes in the incidence of fracture of the upper end of the humerus during a 30-year period. A study of 2125 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; 231: 179–182.

Palvanen

Kannus

Niemi

et al . Update in the epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Clin Orthop 2006; 442: 87–92.

Vachtsevanos

Hayden

Desai

et al . Management of proximal humerus fractures in adults. World J Orthop 2014; 5(5): 685–693.

Bahrs

Bauer

Blumenstock

et al . The complexity of proximal humeral fractures is age and gender specific. J Orthop Sci 2013; 18(3): 465–470.

Maier

Jaeger

Izadpanah

et al . Proximal humeral fracture treatment in adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 596(3): 251–261.

Krivohlávek

Lukás

Taller

et al . Use of angle-stable implants for proximal humeral fractures: prospective study. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 2008; 75(3): 212–220.

Launonen

Lepola

Flinkkilä

et al . Conservative treatment, plate fixation, or prosthesis for proximal humeral fracture. A prospective randomized study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012; 13: 167.

Röderer

Scola

Schmölz

et al . Biomechanical in vitro assessment of screw augmentation in locked plating of proximal humerus fractures. Injury 2013; 44(10): 1327–1332.

10.

Hertel

. Fractures of the proximal humerus in osteoporotic bone. Osteoporos Int 2005; 16(Suppl. 2): S65–S72.

11.

Egol

Sugi

Ong

et al . Fracture site augmentation with calcium phosphate cement reduces screw penetration after open reduction-internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg 2012; 21(6): 741–748.

12.

Konstantinidis

Helwig

Hirschmüller

et al . When is the stability of a fracture fixation limited by osteoporotic bone? Injury 2016; 47: S27–S32.

13.

Unger

Erhart

Kralinger

et al . The effect of in situ augmentation on implant anchorage in proximal humeral head fractures. Injury 2012; 43(10): 1759–1763.

14.

Strømsøe

. Fracture fixation problems in osteoporosis. Injury 2004; 35(2): 107–113.

15.

Brorson

. Fractures of the proximal humerus. Acta Orthop Suppl 2013; 84(351): 1–32.

16.

Krappinger

Bizzotto

Riedmann

et al . Predicting failure after surgical fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Injury 2011; 42(11): 1283–1288.

17.

Blattert

Jestaedt

Weckbach

. Suitability of a calcium phosphate cement in osteoporotic vertebral body fracture augmentation: a controlled, randomized, clinical trial of balloon kyphoplasty comparing calcium phosphate versus polymethylmethacrylate. Spine 2009; 34(2): 108–114.

18.

Kwon

Goertzen

O’Brien

et al . Biomechanical evaluation of proximal humeral fracture fixation supplemented with calcium phosphate cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84-A(6): 951–961.

19.

Gradl

Knobe

Stoffel

et al . Biomechanical evaluation of locking plate fixation of proximal humeral fractures augmented with calcium phosphate cement. J Orthop Trauma 2013; 27(7): 399–404.

20.

LeGeros

. Properties of osteoconductive biomaterials: calcium phosphates. Clin Orthop 2002; 395: 81–98.

21.

Ambard

Mueninghoff

. Calcium phosphate cement: review of mechanical and biological properties. J Prosthodont 2006; 15(5): 321–328.

22.

Scola

Gebhard

Röderer

. Augmentationstechnik am proximalen Humerus. Unfallchirurg 2015; 118(9): 749–754.

23.

Bergmann

Graichen

Bender

et al . In vivo glenohumeral contact forces – measurements in the first patient 7 months postoperatively. J Biomech 2007; 40(10): 2139–2149.

24.

Konstantinidis

Hauschild

Beckmann

et al . Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures with two different minimal invasive angle-stable plates: biomechanical comparison studies on cadaveric bones. Injury 2010; 41(12): 1256–1261.

25.

Jaeger

Izadpanah

Maier

et al . Frakturen des Humeruskopfes. Chir 2012; 83(3): 285–296.

26.

Eriksson

Mattsson

Larsson

. The effect of augmentation with resorbable or conventional bone cement on the holding strength for femoral neck fracture devices. J Orthop Trauma 2002; 16(5): 302–310.

27.

Elder

S-FL

Holmes

et al . The biomechanics of pedicle screw augmentation with cement. Spine J 2015; 15(6): 1432–1445.

28.

Zaryanov

Park

Khalil

et al . Cement augmentation in vertebral burst fractures. Neurosurg Focus 2014; 37(1): E5.

29.

Robinson

Page

. Severely impacted valgus proximal humeral fractures. Results of operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A(9): 1647–1655.

30.

Kathrein

Kralinger

Blauth

et al . Biomechanical comparison of an angular stable plate with augmented and non-augmented screws in a newly developed shoulder test bench. Clin Biomech 2013; 28(3): 273–277.