Osteoporotic fracture fixation in the proximal humerus remains a critical challenge. While the biomechanical benefits of screw augmentation with bone cement are established, minimising the cement volume may help control any risk of extravasation and reduce surgical procedure time. Previous experimental studies suggest that it may be sufficient to only augment the screws at the sites of the lowest bone quality. However, adequately testing this hypothesis in vitro is not feasible. This study systematically evaluated the 64 possible strategies for augmenting six screws in the humeral head through finite element simulations to determine the relative biomechanical benefits of each augmentation strategy. Two subjects with varying levels of local bone mineral density were each modeled with a 2-part and 3-part fracture that was stabilised with a PHILOS plate. The biomechanical fixation was evaluated under physiological loads (muscle and joint reaction forces) that correspond to three different motions: 45 degrees abduction, 45 degrees abduction with 45 degrees internal rotation, and 45 degrees flexion.Background
Methods
The high risk and the associated high mortality of secondary, contralateral hip fractures [1,2] could justify internal, invasive prophylactic reinforcement of the osteoporotic proximal femur to avoid these injuries in case of a low energy fall. Previous studies have demonstrated high potential of augmentation approaches [3,4,5], but to date there has no ideal solution been found. The development of optimized reinforcement strategies can be aided with validated computer simulation tools that can be used to evaluate new ideas. A validated non-linear finite element (FE) simulation tool was used here to predict the yield and fracture load of twelve osteoporotic or osteopenic proximal femora in sideways fall based on high resolution CT images. Various augmentation strategies using bone cement or novel metal implants were developed, optimized and virtually performed on the bone models. The relative strengthening compared to the non-augmented state was evaluated using case-specific FE analyses. Strengthening effect of the cement-based augmentation was linearly proportional to cement volume and was significantly affected by cement location. With the clinically acceptable 12.6 ± 1.2 ml volume and optimized location of the cement cloud, compared to the non-augmented state, 71 ± 26% (42 – 134%) and 217 ± 166% (83 – 509%) increase in yield force and energy was reached, respectively. These were significantly higher than previously published experimental results using the “central” cement location [5], which could be well predicted by our FE models. The optimized metal implant could provide even higher strengthening effect: 140 ± 39% (76 – 194%) increase in yield force and +357 ± 177% (132 – 691%) increase in yield energy. However, for metal implants, a higher risk of subcapital fractures was indicated. For both cement and metal, the originally weaker bones were strengthened exponentially more compared to the stronger ones. The ideal solution for prophylactic augmentation should provide an appropriate balance between the requirements of being clinically feasible, ethically acceptable and mechanically sufficient. Even with the optimized location, the cement-based approach may not provide enough strengthening effect and adequate reproducibility of the identified optimal cement cloud position may not be achieved clinically. While the metal implant based strategy appears to be able to deliver the required strengthening effect, the ethical acceptance of this more invasive option is questionable. Further development is therefore required to identify the ideal, clinically relevant augmentation strategy. This may involve new cement materials, less invasive metal implants, or a combination of both. The FE simulation approach presented here could help to screen the potential ideas and highlight promising candidates for experimental evaluation.
