Biomechanical Comparison of Cortical Lag Screws and Cortical Position Screws for Their Generation of Interfragmentary Compression and Area of Compression in Simulated Lateral Humeral Condylar Fractures

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the interfragmentary compressive force and area of compression generated by cortical screws inserted as either a lag screw or position screw in simulated lateral humeral condylar fractures.

Study Design Ex vivo biomechanical study.

Materials and Methods Thirteen pairs of cadaveric humeri from skeletally mature Merinos with simulated lateral humeral condylar fractures were used. Pressure sensitive film was inserted into the interfragmentary interface prior to fracture reduction with fragment forceps. A cortical screw was inserted as a lag screw or a position screw and tightened to 1.8Nm. Interfragmentary compression and area of compression were quantified and compared between the two treatments groups at three time points.

Results After fracture reduction using fragment forceps (Time point 1: T1), there was no significant difference in interfragmentary compression and area of compression between the two treatments. A combination of fragment forceps and a cortical screw inserted as a lag screw (Time point 2: T2) produced significantly greater interfragmentary compression and area of compression compared with the same screw inserted as a positional screw. After removal of the fragment forceps, leaving only the cortical screw (Time point 3: T3), both the interfragmentary compression and area of compression remain significantly greater in the lag screw group.

Conclusion Lag screws generate a greater force of compression and area of compression compared with position screws in this mature ovine humeral condylar fracture model.

Keywords

position screw - lag screw - interfragmentary compression - lateral humeral condylar fractures - area of compression

Authors' Contributions

C.T. conceptualized the study. C.T., M.N. and L.F. were involved in study design. L.F. was responsible for the acquisition of data, and DW for data analysis. L.F. drafted the manuscript, and all authors were involved in its revision.

Publication History

Received: 02 December 2022

Accepted: 24 March 2023

Article published online:
02 May 2023

• References

• 1 Hernigou P, Pariat J. History of internal fixation with plates (part 2): new developments after World War II; compressing plates and locked plates. Int Orthop 2017; 41 (07) 1489-1500
• 2 Tucker MR. Lag screw vs. position screw fixation of sagittal osteotomies: comparison of stability. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989
• 3 Butterworth SJ, Innes JF. Incomplete humeral condylar fractures in the dog. J Small Anim Pract 2001; 42 (08) 394-398
• 4 Cockett PA, Jones DGC. The repair of humeral condylar fractures in the dog: a review of seventy-nine cases. J Small Anim Pract 1985; 26 (09) 493-520
• 5 Denny HR. Condylar fractures of the humerus in the dog; a review of 133 cases. J Small Anim Pract 1983; 24 (04) 185-197
• 6 Gonsalves MN, Jankovits DA, Huber ML, Strom AM, Garcia TC, Stover SM. Biomechanical comparison of 3.0 mm headless compression screw and 3.5 mm cortical bone screw in a canine humeral condylar fracture model. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2016; 29 (05) 353-360
• 7 Guille AE, Lewis DD, Anderson TP. et al. Evaluation of surgical repair of humeral condylar fractures using self-compressing orthofix pins in 23 dogs. Vet Surg 2004; 33 (04) 314-322
• 8 Moores A. Humeral condylar fractures and incomplete ossification of the humeral condyle in dogs. In Pract 2006; 28 (07) 391-397
• 9 Morshead D, Stambaugh JE. Kirschner wire fixation of lateral humeral condylar fractures in small dogs. Vet Surg 1984; 13 (01) 1-5
• 10 Payne-Johnson M, Lewis DG. A technique for fixation of intercondylar humeral fractures in immature small dogs. J Small Anim Pract 1981; 22 (06) 293-299
• 11 Perry KL, Bruce M, Woods S, Davies C, Heaps LA, Arthurs GI. Effect of fixation method on postoperative complication rates after surgical stabilization of lateral humeral condylar fractures in dogs. Vet Surg 2015; 44 (02) 246-255
• 12 Rochereau P, Diop A, Maurel N, Bernarde A. 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 (06) 712-719
• 13 Simpson AM. Fractures of the humerus. Clin Tech Small Anim Pract 2004; 19 (03) 120-127
• 14 Vida JT, Pooya H, Vasseur PB, Garcia TC, Schulz K, Stover SM. Biomechanical comparison of orthofix pins and cortical bone screws in a canine humeral condylar fracture model. Vet Surg 2005; 34 (05) 491-498
• 15 Denny HR.. A guide to canine and feline orthopaedic surgery. 4th ed. In: Butterworth SJ, ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2000
• 16 Daubs BM, McLaughlin RM, Silverman E, Rizon J. Evaluation of compression generated by self compressing Orthofix bone pins and lag screws in simulated lateral humeral condylar fractures. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2007; 20 (03) 175-179
• 17 Thompson E, Robe AK, Roe SC, Cole JH. Influence of wire configuration on resistance to fragment distraction of tension bands placed in a greater trochanteric osteotomy model. Vet Surg 2020; 49 (04) 710-718
• 18 Chang Y-P, Ho C-Y, Chen C-C, Yeh L-S. Biomechanical comparison between preloaded position screw and lag screw fixations for their compressive effects in a porcine rib fracture model. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2018; 31 (03) 182-187
• 19 Au B, Groundland J, Stoops TK, Santoni BG, Sagi HC. Comparison of 3 methods for maintaining inter-fragmentary compression after fracture reduction and fixation. J Orthop Trauma 2017; 31 (04) 210-213
• 20 Srinivasan A, Young M, Ambrose C, Kellam J. Maintenance of compression with a positional screw versus compression generated with a lag screw. J Orthop Trauma 2019; 33 (11) 564-568