Biomechanical Comparison of 2 Methods of Intramedullary K-Wire Fixation of Transverse Metacarpal Shaft Fractures.
biomechanical · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 25980734.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.jhsa.2015.03.035.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
To determine the relative importance of intramedullary wire (IMW) diameter and IMW number in conferring stability to a metacarpal fracture fixation construct. Our research hypothesis was that the stiffness of IMW fixation for metacarpal shaft fractures using a single 1.6-mm-diameter (0.062-in) wire would be greater than three 0.8-mm-diameter (0.031-in) wires. Our study compared the biomechanical stiffness between one 1.6-mm K-wire and three 0.8-mm K-wires in a composite, fourth-generation, biomechanical metacarpal construct under cantilever testing to treat transverse metacarpal shaft fractures. Six composite bone-wire constructs were tested in each group using constant-rate, nondestructive testing. Stiffness (load/displacement) was measured for each construct. All constructs demonstrated a linear load-displacement relationship. Wires were all tested in their elastic zone. The mean stiffness of the 1-wire construct was 3.20 N/mm and the mean stiffness of the 3-wire construct was 0.76 N/mm. These differences were statistically significant with a large effect size. The stiffness of IMW fixation for metacarpal shaft fractures using a single 1.6-mm-diameter wire was significantly greater than using three 0.8-mm-diameter wires. When IMW fixation is clinically indicated for the treatment of metacarpal fractures, the increased stiffness of a single large-diameter construct provides more stability in the plane of finger flexion-extension.
Medical subject headings
- Bone Wires
- Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary
- Fractures, Bone
- Metacarpal Bones
Anatomy
- hand