title: Comparison of olecranon plate fixation in osteoporotic bone: do current technologies and designs make a difference?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study is to determine if recent innovations in olecranon plates have any advantages in stabilizing osteoporotic olecranon fractures.
  
  
  METHODS
  Five olecranon plates (Acumed, Synthes-SS, Synthes-Ti, US Implants/ITS, and Zimmer) were implanted to stabilize a simulated comminuted fracture pattern in 30 osteoporotic cadaveric elbows. Specimens were randomized by bone mineral density per dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan. Three-dimensional displacement analysis was conducted to assess fragment motion through physiological cyclic arcs of motion and failure loading, which was statistically compared using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference post hoc comparisons with a critical significance level of α = 0.05.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Bone mineral density ranged from 0.546 g/cm to 0.878 g/cm with an average of 0.666 g/cm. All implants limited displacement of the fragments to less than 3 mm until sudden, catastrophic failure as the bone of the proximal fragment pulled away from the implant. The maximum load sustained by all osteoporotic specimens ranged from 1.6 kg to 6.6 kg with an average of 4.4 kg. There was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of cycles survived and maximum loads sustained.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Cyclic physiological loading of osteoporotic olecranon fracture fixation resulted in sudden, catastrophic failure of the bone-implant interface rather than in gradual implant loosening. Recent plate innovations such as locking plates and different screw designs and positions appear to offer no advantages in stabilizing osteoporotic olecranon fractures. Surgeons may be reassured that the current olecranon plates will probably adequately stabilize osteoporotic fractures for early motion in the early postoperative period, but not for heavy activities such as those that involve over 4 kg of resistance.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC 20007, USA. sge1@gunet.georgetown.edu
authors.forename: Scott G
authors.initials: SG
authors.lastname: Edwards
authors.forename: Benjamin D
authors.initials: BD
authors.lastname: Martin
authors.forename: Rose H
authors.initials: RH
authors.lastname: Fu
authors.forename: Joseph M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Gill
authors.forename: Mani K
authors.initials: MK
authors.lastname: Nezhad
authors.forename: Jeffrey A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Orr
authors.forename: Allen M
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Ferrucci
authors.forename: James M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Love
authors.forename: Richard
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Booth
authors.forename: Andrea
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Singer
authors.forename: Adam H
authors.initials: AH
authors.lastname: Hsieh
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D001860:Bone Plates; D002102:Cadaver; D004551:Elbow Joint / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery; D005260:Female; D005593:Fracture Fixation, Internal / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D050723:Fractures, Bone / Q000150:complications / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008422:Materials Testing; D008875:Middle Aged; D056740:Olecranon Process / Q000293:injuries / Q000601:surgery*; D010024:Osteoporosis / Q000150:complications / Q000601:surgery*; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011475:Prosthesis Failure
chemical_list: D001672:Biocompatible Materials