title: [A biomechanical study on internal and external fixation devices for treatment of humeral shaft fracture].
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To provide the scientific theoretical basis for clinical practice by comparing biomechanical characteristics of single compressed plate with intramedullary pin, locking intramedullary nail and simple arm external fixator with simple internal fixation devices.
  
  
  METHODS
  Eighteen wet humeral bone specimens of adult cadaver were made complicated fracture models of humeral shaft and divided into 3 groups according to fixation methods. Fracture was fixed by single compressed plate with intramedullary pin in plate group, by locking intramedullary nail in intramedullary nail group and by external fixator with simple internal fixation devices in external fixator group. The intensity and rigidity of complicated fracture models of humeral shaft was measured in compress test and torsion test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In compress test, the maximum load in plate group (6,162.09 +/- 521.06) N and in intramedullary nail group (6,738.32 +/- 525.89) N was significantly larger than that in external fixator group (2,753.57 +/- 185.59) N (P < 0.05); but there was no significant difference between plate group and intramedullary nail group (P > 0.05). Under 600 N physiological compress load, the rigidity was (171.69 +/- 6.49) N/mm in plate group, (333.04 +/- 36.85) N/mm in intramedullary nail group and (132.59 +/- 2.93) N/mm in external fixator group; showing no significant difference between plate group and external fixator group (P > 0.05), and showing significant difference between intramedullary nail group and plate, external fixator groups (P < 0.05). In torsion test, the maximum torque in plate group (38.24 +/- 7.08) Nm was significantly larger than those in intramedullary nail group (17.12 +/- 5.73) Nm and external fixator group (20.26 +/- 6.42) Nm (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between intramedullary nail group and external fixator group (P > 0.05). Under 0.80 Nm physiological torque, the rigidity was (16.36 +/- 2.07) Ncm/degree in plate group and (18.79 +/- 2.62) Ncm/degree in external fixator group, which was significantly larger than that in intramedullary nail group (11.45 +/- 0.22) Ncm/degree (P < 0.05); but there was no significant difference between plate group and external fixator group (P > 0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Those fracture models fixed by single compressed plate with intramedullary pin have better compress and torsion intensity, they also have better torsion rigidity but less compress rigidity. Those fracture models fixed by locking intramedullary nail have better compress intensity but less torsion intensity, they also have better compress rigidity but less torsion rigidity. Those fracture models fixed by external fixator with simple internal fixation device have less compress and torsion intensity, they also have less compress rigidity but better torsion rigidity.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopedic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu Sichuan, 610041, P.R. China.
authors.forename: Xueqiang
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Niu
authors.forename: Fuguo
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Huang
authors.forename: Shiqiang
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Cen
authors.forename: Tingwu
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Qin
authors.forename: Rongshi
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.forename: Zhenghui
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Shang
authors.forename: Aixue
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Liu
authors.forename: Huawei
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Zheng
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D001860:Bone Plates; D001863:Bone Screws; D016267:External Fixators; D005260:Female; D005592:Fracture Fixation / Q000379:methods*; D005594:Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D006810:Humeral Fractures / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000601:surgery*; D016268:Internal Fixators; D008297:Male; D008422:Materials Testing