Finite Element Analysis of Insertion Angle of Absorbable Screws for the Fixation of Radial Head Fractures

Human head-neck model and its application thresholds: a narrative review

There have been many studies on human head-neck biomechanical models in the last two decades, and the associated modelling techniques were constantly evolving at the same time. Computational approaches have been widely leveraged, in parallel to conventional physical tests, to investigate biomechanics and injuries of the head-neck system in fields like the automotive industry, orthopedic, sports medicine, etc. The purpose of this manuscript is to provide a global review of the existing knowledge related to the modelling approaches, structural and biomechanical characteristics, validation, and application of the present head-neck models. This endeavor aims to support further enhancements and validations in modelling practices, particularly addressing the lack of data for model validation, as well as to prospect future advances in terms of the topics. Seventy-four models subject to the proposed selection criteria are considered. Based on previously established and validated head-neck computational models, most of the studies performed in-depth investigations of included cases, which revolved around four specific subjects: physiopathology, treatment evaluation, collision condition, and sports injury. Through the review of the recent 20 years of research, the summarized modelling information indicated existing deficiencies and future research topics, as well as provided references for subsequent head-neck model development and application.

Added transverse screw in tripod construct increases stiffness in Mason III radial head fractures: a finite element analysis

BACKGROUND

The tripod screw configuration has been shown to offer similar stiffness characteristics to a laterally placed plate. However, concern has been raised that the construct may be prone to failure in scenarios where the screw intersects at the fracture line. We performed a finite element analysis to assess potentially ideal and unideal screw placements in the tripod construct among Mason III radial head fractures.

METHODS

A 3-dimensional proximal radius model was developed using a computed tomography scan of an adult male radius. The fracture site was simulated with a uniform gap in transverse and sagittal planes creating a Mason type III fracture pattern comprising 3 fragments. Three configurations were modeled with varying screw intersection points in relation to the radial neck fracture line. A fourth configuration comprising an added transverse interfragmentary screw was also modeled. Loading scenarios included axial and shear forces to simulate physiological conditions. Von Mises stress and displacement were used as outcomes for analysis.

RESULTS

Some variation can be seen among the tripod configurations, with a marginal tendency for reduced implant stress and greater stiffness when screw intersection is further from the neck fracture region. The construct with an added transverse interfragmentary screw demonstrated greater stiffness (2269 N/mm) than an equivalent tripod construct comprising 3 screws (612 N/mm).

CONCLUSION

The results from this study demonstrate biomechanical similarity between tripod screw constructs including where screws intersect at the radial neck fracture line. An added fourth screw, positioned transversely across fragments, increased construct stiffness in our model.

Biomechanical comparison of different internal fixation devices for transversely unstable Mason type II radial head fractures

Background: The integrity of the radial head is critical to maintaining elbow joint stability. For radial head fractures requiring surgical treatment, headless compression cannulated screw fixation is a less invasive scheme that has fewer complications. The aim of this study was to compare the mechanical stability of different fixation devices, including headless compression cannulated screws and mini-T-plates, for the fixation of transversely unstable radial head fractures. Methods: Forty identical synthetic radius bones were used to construct transverse unstable radial head fracture models. Parallel, cross, and tripod headless compression cannulated screw fixation and mini-T plate fixation were applied. The structural stiffness of each group was compared by static shear loading. Afterward, cyclic loading was performed in each of the three directions of the radial head, and the shear stability of each group was compared by calculating the maximum radial head displacement at the end of the cycle. Findings: The mini-T plate group had the lowest structural stiffness (51.8 ± 7.7 N/mm) and the highest relative displacement of the radial head after cyclic loading (p < 0.05). The tripod headless compression cannulated screw group had the highest structural stiffness among all screw groups (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the relative displacement of the radial head between the screw groups after cyclic loading in different directions (p > 0.05). Interpretation: In conclusion, the biomechanical stability of the mini-T plate for fixation of transverse unstable radial head fractures is lower than that of headless compression cannulated screws. Tripod fixation provides more stable fixation than parallel and cross fixation with headless compression cannulated screws for the treatment of transversely unstable radial head fractures.

Is implant choice associated with fixation strength for displaced radial neck fracture: a network meta-analysis of biomechanical studies

The multitude of fixation options for radial neck fractures, such as pins, screws, biodegradable pins and screws, locking plates, and blade plates, has led to a lack of consensus on the optimal implant choice and associated biomechanical properties. This study aims to evaluate the biomechanical strength of various fixation constructs in axial, sagittal, and torsional loading directions. We included biomechanical studies comparing different interventions, such as cross/parallel screws, nonlocking plates with or without augmented screws, fixed angle devices (T or anatomic locking plates or blade plates), and cross pins. A systematic search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL EBSCO databases was conducted on September 26th, 2022. Data extraction was carried out by one author and verified by another. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Primary outcomes encompassed axial, bending, and torsional stiffness, while the secondary outcome was bending load to failure. Effect sizes were calculated for continuous outcomes, and relative treatment ranking was measured using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Our analysis encompassed eight studies, incorporating 172 specimens. The findings indicated that fixed angle constructs, specifically the anatomic locking plate, demonstrated superior axial stiffness (mean difference [MD]: 23.59 N/mm; 95% CI 8.12-39.06) in comparison to the cross screw. Additionally, the blade plate construct excelled in bending stiffness (MD: 32.37 N/mm; 95% CI - 47.37 to 112.11) relative to the cross screw construct, while the cross-screw construct proved to be the most robust in terms of bending load failure. The parallel screw construct performed optimally in torsional stiffness (MD: 139.39 Nm/degree; 95% CI 0.79-277.98) when compared to the cross screw construct. Lastly, the nonlocking plate, locking T plate, and cross-pin constructs were found to be inferior in most respects to alternative interventions. The NMA indicated that fixed angle devices (blade plate and anatomic locking plate) and screw fixations may exhibit enhanced biomechanical strength in axial and bending directions, whereas cross screws demonstrated reduced torsional stability in comparison to parallel screws. It is imperative for clinicians to consider the application of these findings in constraining forces across various directions during early range of motion exercises, taking into account the distinct biomechanical properties of the respective implants.

Finite Element Analysis of Elbow Joint Stability by Different Flexion Angles of the Annular Ligament

Objective

The injury of the annular ligament can change the stress distribution and affect the stability of the elbow joint, but its biomechanical mechanism is unclear. The present study investigated the biomechanical effects of different flexion angles of the annular ligament on elbow joint stability.

Methods

A cartilage and ligament model was constructed using SolidWorks software according to the magnetic resonance imaging results to simulate the annular ligament during normal, loosened, and ruptured conditions at different buckling angles (0°, 30°, 60°, 90°, and 120°). The fixed muscle strengths were 40 N (F1), 20 N (F2), 20 N (F3), 20 N (F4), and 20 N (F5) for the triceps, biceps, and brachial tendons and the base of the medial collateral ligament and lateral collateral ligament. The different elbow three‐dimensional (3D) finite element models were imported into ABAQUS software to calculate and analyze the load, contact area, contact stress, and stress of the medial collateral ligament of the olecranon cartilage.

Results

The results showed that the stress value of olecranon cartilage increased under different conditions (normal, loosened, and ruptured annular ligament) with elbow extension, and the maximum stress value of olecranon cartilage was 2.91 ± 0.24 MPa when the annular ligament was ruptured. The maximum contact area of olecranon cartilage was 254  mm² with normal annular ligament when the elbow joint was flexed to 30°, while the maximum contact area of loosened and ruptured annular ligament was 283 and 312 mm² at 60° of elbow flexion, and then decreased gradually. The maximum stress of the medial collateral ligament was 6.52 ± 0.23, 11.51 ± 0.78, and 18.74 ± 0.94 MPa under the different conditions, respectively.

Conclusion

When the annular ligament ruptures, it should be reconstructed as much as possible to avoid the elevation of stress on the surface of the medial collateral ligament of the elbow and the annular cartilage, which may cause clinical symptoms.

Effect of the In Situ Screw Implantation Region and Angle on the Stability of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Study

Objective

To investigate the effect of the in situ screw implantation region and angle on the stability of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) from a biomechanical perspective.

Methods

A validated L2‐4 finite element (FE) model was modified for simulation. The L3‐4 fused segment undergoing LLIF surgery was modeled. The area between the superior and inferior edges and the anterior and posterior edges of the vertebral body (VB) is divided into four zones by three parallel lines in coronal and horizontal planes. In situ screw implantation methods with different angles based on the three parallel lines in coronal plane were applied in Models A, B, and C (A: parallel to inferior line; B: from inferior line to midline; C: from inferior line to superior line). In addition, four implantation methods with different regions based on the three parallel lines in horizontal plane were simulated as types 1–2, 1–3, 2–2, and 2–3 (1–2: from anterior line to midline; 1–3: from anterior line to posterior line; 2–2: parallel to midline; 2–3: from midline to posterior line). L3‐4 ROM, interbody cage stress, screw‐bone interface stress, and L4 superior endplate stress were tracked and calculated for comparisons among these models.

Results

The L3‐4 ROM of Models A, B, and C decreased with the extent ranging from 47.9% (flexion‐extension) to 62.4% (lateral bending) with no significant differences under any loading condition. Types 2–2 and 2–3 had 45% restriction, while types 1–2 and 1–3 had 51% restriction in ROM under flexion‐extension conditions. Under lateral bending, types 2–2 and 2–3 had 70.6% restriction, while types 1–2 and 1–3 had 61.2% restriction in ROM. Under axial rotation, types 2–2 and 2–3 had 65.2% restriction, while types 1–2 and 1–3 had 59.3% restriction in ROM. The stress of the cage in types 2–2 and 2–3 was approximately 20% lower than that in types 1–2 and 1–3 under all loading conditions in all models. The peak stresses at the screw‐bone interface in types 2–2 and 2–3 were much lower (approximately 35%) than those in types 1–2 and 1–3 under lateral bending, while no significant differences were observed under flexion‐extension and axial rotation. The peak stress on the L4 superior endplate was approximately 30 MPa and was not significantly different in all models under any loading condition.

Conclusions

Different regions of entry‐exit screws induced multiple screw trajectories and influenced the stability and mechanical responses. However, different implantation angles did not. Considering the difficulty of implantation, the ipsilateral‐contralateral trajectory in the lateral middle region of the VB can be optimal for in situ screw implantation in LLIF surgery.