Enhanced Biomechanical Stability in Proximal Humeral Fractures: Finite Element Analysis of a Novel Endosteal Anatomical Support Nail for Improved Fixation in Elderly Patients

Abstract

Objectives: Intramedullary nailing is preferred for treating elderly proximal humeral fractures, but secondary reductions are common, particularly in elderly and osteoporotic patients. This occurs due to the intramedullary nail fixation’s insufficient anti-varus and anti-rotational capacities and high stress at the bone–implant interface. We aim to enhance the anti-varus and anti-rotational stability of the fixation structure while reducing the stresses on the bone and internal fixation through structural design.

Materials and Methods: We developed a novel endosteal anatomical support nail (EASN) that integrates an endosteal torus construct into the proximal portion of the angle-stable proximal humerus nail. The endosteal torus construct includes endosteal anatomical support (EAS) with a flat plane that allows direct fixation of the humeral head fragments and is shaped to conform to the medial side of the medullary cavity of the proximal humerus. We conducted finite element analysis to assess the biomechanical stability of four constructs: EAS with a calcar screw (CS), EAS without CS, non-EAS with CS, and non-EAS without CS. This analysis determined the contribution of the EAS to the mechanical stability of the proximal humerus in two-part PHF with medial column disruption. Specimens were subjected to loads simulating partial-weight-bearing (as in rising from a chair or using crutches) and full-weight-bearing (as in rising from bed). We evaluated the stiffness of the construct, displacement at the fracture site, von Mises stress, and stress distribution.

Results: Under compressive or rotational loads, the EAS construct, with or without CS, was significantly stiffer than the non-EAS construct. Displacement at the fracture site was significantly less with the EAS fixation than with the non-EAS fixation. However, the stiffness and displacement at the fracture site of the EAS fixation without CS were comparable to those of the non-EAS construct with CS. The EAS construct reduced the load on the nail and decreased the risk of implant failure. Both von Mises stress and stress distribution were significantly lower following fixation with the EAS constructs.

Conclusions: This study introduces a novel EAS concept to enhance the anti-varus and anti-rotational capabilities of the humeral head and distribute stress at the bone–implant interface in treating elderly PHFs. This strategy shows promise based on our limited analysis.

Keywords

biomechanical characteristics / Endosteal anatomical support / finite element analysis / intramedullary nailing / proximal humeral fractures

References

[1] A. Cil, Proximal Humeral Fractures: “Damned If You Operate, and Damned If You Don’t”: Commentary on an Article by C. Michael Robinson, FRCSEd(Tr&Orth), et al., “Complications and Long-Term Outcomes of Open Reduction and Plate Fixation of Proximal Humeral Fractures,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume) 101, no. 23 (2019): e131.

[2] S. J. Mease, M. J. Kraeutler, D. C Gonzales-Luna, J. M. Gregory, M. J. Gardner, and A. M. Choo, “Current Controversies in the Treatment of Geriatric Proximal Humeral Fractures,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume) 103, no. 9 (2021): 829–836.

[3] C. Spross, V. Zdravkovic, M. Manser, J. M Farei-Campagna, M. Jacxsens, and B. Jost, “Outcomes of Management of Proximal Humeral Fractures With Patient-Specific, Evidence-Based Treatment Algorithms,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume) 103, no. 20 (2021): 1906–1916.

[4] H. H. Handoll, J. Elliott, T. M. Thillemann, P. Aluko, and S. Brorson, “Interventions for Treating Proximal Humeral Fractures in Adults,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 6, no. 6 (2022): CD000434.

[5] J. Wong, J. M. Newman, and K. I. Gruson, “Outcomes of Intramedullary Nailing for Acute Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Systematic Review,” Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology 17, no. 2 (2016): 113–122.

[6] S. Congia, A. Palmas, G. Marongiu, and A. Capone, “Is Antegrade Nailing a Proper Option in 2-and 3-Part Proximal Humeral Fractures,” Musculoskeletal Surgery 104, no. 2 (2020): 179–185.

[7] H. Song, T. He, H. Y. Guo, et al., “Locking Plates Versus Locking Intramedullary Nails Fixation of Proximal Humeral Fractures Involving the Humeral Shaft: A Retrospective Cohort Study,” Medical Science Monitor 26 (2020): e922598.

[8] P. Boyer, C. Couffignal, M. Bahman, G. Mylle, M. A. Rousseau, and R. Dukan, “Displaced Three and Four Part Proximal Humeral Fractures: Prospective Controlled Randomized Open-Label Two-Arm Study Comparing Intramedullary Nailing and Locking Plate,” International Orthopaedics 45, no. 11 (2021): 2917–2926.

[9] J. Stolberg-Stolberg, J. Köppe, R. Rischen, et al., “Influence of Complications and Comorbidities on Length of Hospital Stay and Costs for Surgical Treatment of Proximal Humeral Fractures,” Der Chirurg 92, no. 10 (2021): 907–915.

[10] Y. Lopiz, D. Garríguez-Pérez, M. Martínez-Illán, C. García-Fernández, and F. Marco, “Third-Generation Intramedullary Nailing for Displaced Proximal Humeral Fractures in the Elderly: Quality of Life, Clinical Results, and Complications,” Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 142, no. 2 (2022): 227–238.

[11] F. Mocini, G. Rovere, D. De Mauro, et al., “Newer Generation Straight Humeral Nails Allow Faster Bone Healing and Better Functional Outcome at Mid-Term,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 16, no. 1 (2021): 631.

[12] C. E. Chalmers, D. J. Wright, N. Patel, et al., “Muscular Forces Responsible for Proximal Humeral Deformity After Fracture,” Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 36, no. 1 (2022): e18–e23.

[13] J. A. Scolaro, C. E. Chalmers, D. J. Wright, N. Patel, M. McGarry, and T. Q. Lee, “Suture Augmentation Neutralizes Deforming Muscular Forces in a Simulated 2-Part Osteoporotic Proximal Humeral Fracture Model,” Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 36, no. 8 (2022): 312–317.

[14] H. Chen, X. Ji, Q. Zhang, X. Liang, and P. Tang, “Clinical Outcomes of Allograft With Locking Compression Plates for Elderly Four-Part Proximal Humerus Fractures,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 10 (2015): 114.

[15] W. Zhang, Z. Chang, J. Li, P. Tang, and H. Chen, “A Morphological Study of Age-Related Changes in Medullary Characteristics of Proximal Humerus,” Chinese Medical Journal 135, no. 3 (2021): 359–361.

[16] H. Chen, Z. G. Zhu, J. T. Li, Z. H. Chang, and P. F. Tang, “Finite Element Analysis of an Intramedulary Anatomical Strut for Proximal Humeral Fractures With Disrupted Medial Column Instability: A Cohort Study,” International Journal of Surgery 73 (2020): 50–56.

[17] R. Agha, A. Abdall-Razak, E. Crossley, N. Dowlut, C. Iosifidis, and G. Mathew, “STROCSS 2019 Guideline: Strengthening the Reporting of Cohort Studies in Surgery,” International Journal of Surgery 72 (2019): 156–165.

[18] Y. He, J. He, F. Wang, et al., “Application of Additional Medial Plate in Treatment of Proximal Humeral Fractures With Unstable Medial Column: A Finite Element Study and Clinical Practice,” Medicine (Baltimore) 94, no. 41 (2015): e1775.

[19] P. Clavert, A. Hatzidakis, and P. Boileau, “Anatomical and Biomechanical Evaluation of an Intramedullary Nail for Fractures of Proximal Humerus Fractures Based on Tuberosity Fixation,” Clinical Biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) 32 (2016): 108–112.

[20] M. Wanzl, P. Foehr, U. Schreiber, R. H. Burgkart, and A. Lenich, “Biomechanical Testing to Evaluate the Cut-Through Resistance of Intramedullary Nails for the Proximal Humerus,” Injury 47, no. Suppl 7 (2016): S20–S24.

[21] I. R. Murray, A. K. Amin, T. O. White, and C. M. Robinson, “Proximal Humeral Fractures: Current Concepts in Classification, Treatment and Outcomes,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume (London) 93, no. 1 (2011): 1–11.

[22] C. M. Robinson, P. Stirling, E. B. Goudie, D. J. MacDonald, and J. A. Strelzow, “Complications and Long-Term Outcomes of Open Reduction and Plate Fixation of Proximal Humeral Fractures,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 101, no. 23 (2019): 2129–2139.

[23] N. Martinez-Catalan and P. Boileau, “The Role of Intramedullary Nailing for Proximal Humerus Fractures: What Works and What Does Not[J],” Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine 16, no. 2 (2023): 85–94.

[24] H. Wang, B. Rui, S. Lu, C. Luo, Y. Chen, and Y. Chai, “Locking Plate Use With or Without Strut Support for Varus Displaced Proximal Humeral Fractures in Elderly Patients,” JBJS Open Access 4, no. 3 (2019): e0060.1-8.

[25] S. L. Edwards, N. A. Wilson, L. Q. Zhang, S. Flores, and B. R. Merk, “Two-Part Surgical Neck Fractures of the Proximal Part of the Humerus. A Biomechanical Evaluation of Two Fixation Techniques,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume) 88, no. 10 (2006): 2258–2264.

[26] E. M. Feerick, J. Kennedy, H. Mullett, D. FitzPatrick, and P. McGarry, “Investigation of Metallic and Carbon Fibre PEEK Fracture Fixation Devices for Three-Part Proximal Humeral Fractures,” Medical Engineering & Physics 35, no. 6 (2013): 712–722.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.