Biomechanical comparison of 3.0 mm headless compression screw and 3.5 mm cortical bone screw in a canine humeral condylar fracture model

Mishka N. Gonsalves; Daniel A. Jankovits; Michael L. Huber; Adam M. Strom; Tanya C. Garcia; Susan M. Stover

doi:10.3415/VCOT-15-06-0097

Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Table of Contents

Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2016; 29(05): 353-360
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-15-06-0097

Original Research

Schattauer GmbH

Biomechanical comparison of 3.0 mm headless compression screw and 3.5 mm cortical bone screw in a canine humeral condylar fracture model

Mishka N. Gonsalves

¹Animal Specialty Group, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, USA

,

Daniel A. Jankovits

¹Animal Specialty Group, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, USA

,

Michael L. Huber

¹Animal Specialty Group, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, USA

,

Adam M. Strom

¹Animal Specialty Group, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, USA

,

Tanya C. Garcia

²J.D. Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA

,

Susan M. Stover

²J.D. Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Summary

Objective: To compare the biomechanical properties of simulated humeral condylar fractures reduced with one of two screw fixation methods: 3.0 mm headless compression screw (HCS) or 3.5 mm cortical bone screw (CBS) placed in lag fashion.

Methods: Bilateral humeri were collected from nine canine cadavers. Standardized osteotomies were stabilized with 3.0 mm HCS in one limb and 3.5 mm CBS in the contralateral limb. Condylar fragments were loaded to walk, trot, and failure loads while measuring construct properties and condylar fragment motion.

Results: The 3.5 mm CBS-stabilized constructs were 36% stiffer than 3.0 mm HCS-stabilized constructs, but differences were not apparent in quality of fracture reduction nor in yield loads, which exceeded expected physiological loads during rehabilitation. Small residual fragment displacements were not different between CBS and HCS screws. Small fragment rotation was not significantly different between screws, but was weakly correlated with moment arm length (R² = 0.25).

Clinical significance: A CBS screw placed in lag fashion provides stiffer fixation than an HCS screw, although both screws provide similar anatomical reduction and yield strength to condylar fracture fixation in adult canine humeri.

Keywords

Headless compression - humeral condylar fracture - lag screw - canine

Full Text

References

References
1 Denny HR. Condylar fractures of the humerus in the dog; a review of 133 cases. J Small Anim Pract 1983; 24: 185-197.
2 Rørvik AM. Risk factors for humeral condylar fractures in the dog: A retrospective study. J Small Anim Pract 1993; 34: 277-282.
3 Moores AP, Agthe P, Schaafsma IA. Prevalence of incomplete ossification of the humeral condyle and other abnormalities of the elbow in English Springer Spaniels. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2012; 25: 211-216.
4 Cook JL, Tomlinson JL, Reed AL. Fluoroscopically guided closed reduction and internal fixation of fractures of the lateral portion of the humeral condyle: prospective clinical study of the technique and results in ten dogs. Vet Surg 1999; 28: 315-321.
5 Butterworth SJ, Innes JF. Incomplete humeral condylar fractures in the dog. J Small Anim Pract 2001; 42: 394-398.
6 Burkhart KJ, Nowak TE, Appelmann P. et al. Screw fixation of radial head fractures: compression screw versus lag screw- a biomechanical comparison. Injury 2010; 41: 1015-1019.
7 Brown GA, McCarthy T, Bourgeault CA. et al. Mechanical performance of standard and cannulated 4.0-mm cancellous bone screws. J Orthop Res 2000; 18: 307-312.
8 Perry K, Fitzpatrick N, Johnson J. et al. Headless self-compressing cannulated screw fixation for treatment of radial carpal bone fracture or fissure in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2010; 23: 94-101.
9 Singisetti K, Aldlyami E, Middleton A. Early results of a new implant: 3.0 mm headless compression screw for scaphoid fracture fixation. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2012; 37: 690-693.
10 Vida JT, Pooya H, Vasseur PB. et al. Biomechanical comparison of orthofix pins and cortical bone screws in a canine humeral condylar fracture model. Vet Surg 2005; 34: 491-498.
11 Rochereau P, Diop A, Maurel N. et al. Biomechanical comparison of 4.0-mm short-threaded cannulated screws and 4.0-mm short-threaded cancellous screws in a canine humeral condylar fracture model. Vet Surg 2012; 41: 712-719.
12 McLaughlin Jr RM , Roush JK. Effects of subject stance time and velocity on ground reaction forces in clinically normal greyhounds at the trot. Am J Vet Res 1994; 55: 1666-1671.
13 Nielsen C, Stover SM, Schulz KS. et al. Two-dimensional link-segment model of the forelimb of dogs at a walk. Am J Vet Res 2003; 64: 609-617.
14 Mason DR, Schulz KS, Fujita Y. et al. In vitro force mapping of normal canine humeroradial and humeroulnar joints. Am J Vet Res 2005; 66: 132-135.
15 Turner TM. Fractures of the humerus. In Johnson A, Houlton J, Vannini R. editors AO Principles of Fracture Management in the Dog and Cat 1st ed.. Davos, Switzerland: AO Publishing; 2005: 217-225.
16 Assari S, Darvish K, Ilyas AM. Biomechanical analysis of second-generation headless compression screws. Injury 2012; 43: 1159-1165.
17 Catala-Lehnen P, Nuchtern JV, Briem D. et al. Comparison of 2D and 3D navigation techniques for percutaneous screw insertion into the scaphoid: results of an experimental cadaver study. Comput Aided Surg 2011; 16: 280-287.
18 Gruszka DS, Burkhart KJ, Nowak TE. et al. The durability of the intrascaphoid compression of headless compression screws: in vitro study. J Hand Surg Am 2012; 37: 1142-1150.
19 Marcellin-Little DJ, DeYoung DJ, Ferris KK. et al. Incomplete ossification of the humeral condyle in spaniels. Vet Surg 1994; 23: 475-487.