Aims. Fixation of osteoporotic proximal humerus fractures remains challenging even with state-of-the-art locking plates. Despite the demonstrated biomechanical benefit of screw tip augmentation with bone cement, the clinical findings have remained unclear, potentially as the optimal augmentation combinations are unknown. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the biomechanical benefits of the augmentation options in a humeral locking plate using finite element analysis (FEA). Methods. A total of 64 cement augmentation configurations were analyzed using six screws of a locking plate to virtually fix unstable three-part fractures in 24 low-density proximal humerus models under three physiological loading cases (4,608 simulations). The biomechanical benefit of augmentation was evaluated through an established FEA methodology using the average peri-screw bone strain as a validated predictor of cyclic cut-out failure. Results. The biomechanical benefit was already significant with a single cemented screw and increased with the number of augmented screws, but the configuration was highly influential. The best two-screw (mean 23%, SD 3% reduction) and the worst four-screw (mean 22%, SD 5%) combinations performed similarly. The largest benefits were achieved with augmenting screws purchasing into the calcar and having posteriorly located tips. Local bone mineral density was not directly related to the improvement. Conclusion. The number and configuration of cemented screws strongly determined how augmentation can alleviate the predicted risk of cut-out failure. Screws purchasing in the calcar and posterior humeral head regions may be prioritized. Although requiring clinical corroborations, these findings may explain the controversial results of previous clinical studies not controlling the choices of screw augmentation

Aims

The aim of the current study was to assess the reliability of the Ottawa classification for symptomatic acetabular dysplasia.

The Unified Classification System (UCS) emphasises the key principles in the assessment and management of peri-prosthetic fractures complicating partial or total joint replacement.

We tested the inter- and intra-observer agreement for the UCS as applied to the pelvis and femur using 20 examples of peri-prosthetic fracture in 17 patients. Each subtype of the UCS was represented by at least one case. Specialist orthopaedic surgeons (experts) and orthopaedic residents (pre-experts) assessed reliability on two separate occasions.

For the pelvis, the UCS showed inter-observer agreement of 0.837 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.798 to 0.876) for the experts and 0.728 (95% CI 0.689 to 0.767) for the pre-experts. The intra-observer agreement for the experts was 0.861 (95% CI 0.760 to 0.963) and 0.803 (95% 0.688 to 0.918) for the pre-experts. For the femur, the UCS showed an inter-observer kappa value of 0.805 (95% CI 0.765 to 0.845) for the experts and a value of 0.732 (95% CI 0.690 to 0.773) for the pre-experts. The intra-observer agreement was 0.920 (95% CI 0.867 to 0.973) for the experts, and 0.772 (95% CI 0.652 to 0.892) for the pre-experts. This corresponds to a substantial and ‘almost perfect’ inter- and intra-observer agreement for the UCS for peri-prosthetic fractures of the pelvis and femur.

We hope that unifying the terminology of these injuries will assist in their assessment, treatment and outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1472–7.