PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this cadaveric study was to evaluate the conformity of the anatomically preshaped proximal humerus internal locking plate system (PHILOS) to the humeri of the Korean and anatomical features of nine locking screws for the proximal humerus.
Materials and Methods
This study included 20 adult humeri (average length 30.2 mm) with no deformity or previous surgery. PHILOS was applied to the lateral surface of the proximal humerus according to the contour. Then, the distance from the outer surface of the plate to the greater tuberosity and bicipital groove was measured. After K-wires were passed through the proximal locking guide, the intra-osseous length of K-wire and the configuration of the K-wire exit were evaluated.
Results
The overall conformity of PHILOS was excellent at the lateral aspect of the proximal humerus. The tip of the plate had an average distance of 3.6 mm (range, 1.4-6.6 mm; standard deviation [SD], 1.27) from the greater tuberosity and 2.5 mm (range, 0.0-4.6 mm; SD, 1.24) at the bicipital groove and the average intra-osseous length of K-wire through the locking guide was 41.1 mm (range, 23.5-53.7 mm). K-wires were evenly penetrated through the humeral head. On H8 and H9, the bottom hole of PHILOS is closely located at the most inferior area of the humeral articular surface. The bicipital groove was pierced by K-wires of H5, which was the middle hole of PHILOS in four cases (20%).
Figures and Tables
Figure 1
The Screw holes of proximal humerus internal locking plate system are numbered from superior to inferior and anterior to posterior.
Figure 2
K-wires through the locking compression plate drill sleeve are placed in the proximal humerus.
Figure 3
Distances from the greater tuberosity and bicipital groove to the plate are measured using the caliper.
Figure 4
Proximal humerus internal locking plate system is well fitted when applied to the humerus along the lateral surface of the proximal humerus.
References
1. Hertel R. Fractures of the proximal humerus in osteoporotic bone. Osteoporos Int. 2005; 16:Suppl 2. S65–S72.
2. Hirschmann MT, Quarz V, Audigé L, et al. Internal fixation of unstable proximal humerus fractures with an anatomically preshaped interlocking plate: a clinical and radiologic evaluation. J Trauma. 2007; 63:1314–1323.
3. Agudelo J, Schürmann M, Stahel P, et al. Analysis of efficacy and failure in proximal humerus fractures treated with locking plates. J Orthop Trauma. 2007; 21:676–681.
4. Owsley KC, Gorczyca JT. Fracture displacement and screw cutout after open reduction and locked plate fixation of proximal humeral fractures [corrected]. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90:233–240.
5. Egol KA, Ong CC, Walsh M, Jazrawi LM, Tejwani NC, Zuckerman JD. Early complications in proximal humerus fractures (OTA Types 11) treated with locked plates. J Orthop Trauma. 2008; 22:159–164.
6. Solberg BD, Moon CN, Franco DP, Paiement GD. Locked plating of 3- and 4-part proximal humerus fractures in older patients: the effect of initial fracture pattern on outcome. J Orthop Trauma. 2009; 23:113–119.
7. Anglen JO, Archdeacon MT, Cannada LK, Herscovici D Jr. Avoiding complications in the treatment of humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90:1580–1589.
8. Lee KW, Choi YJ, Ahn HS, et al. Internal fixation of proximal humerus fracture with polyaxial angular stable locking compression plate in patients older than 65 years. Clin Should Elbow. 2012; 15:25–31.
9. Charalambous CP, Siddique I, Valluripalli K, et al. Proximal humeral internal locking system (PHILOS) for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007; 127:205–210.
10. Erhardt JB, Stoffel K, Kampshoff J, Badur N, Yates P, Kuster MS. The position and number of screws influence screw perforation of the humeral head in modern locking plates: a cadaver study. J Orthop Trauma. 2012; 26:e188–e192.
11. Südkamp N, Bayer J, Hepp P, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation of proximal humeral fractures with use of the locking proximal humerus plate. Results of a prospective, multicenter, observational study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91:1320–1328.
12. Spross C, Platz A, Rufibach K, Lattmann T, Forberger J, Dietrich M. The PHILOS plate for proximal humeral fractures-risk factors for complications at one year. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012; 72:783–792.
13. Gardner MJ, Weil Y, Barker JU, Kelly BT, Helfet DL, Lorich DG. The importance of medial support in locked plating of proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2007; 21:185–191.
14. Osterhoff G, Hoch A, Wanner GA, Simmen HP, Werner CM. Calcar comminution as prognostic factor of clinical outcome after locking plate fixation of proximal humeral fractures. Injury. 2012; 43:1651–1656.
15. Osterhoff G, Ossendorf C, Wanner GA, Simmen HP, Werner CM. The calcar screw in angular stable plate fixation of proximal humeral fractures--a case study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2011; 6:50.
16. Lescheid J, Zdero R, Shah S, Kuzyk PR, Schemitsch EH. The biomechanics of locked plating for repairing proximal humerus fractures with or without medial cortical support. J Trauma. 2010; 69:1235–1242.
XML Download