Comparison of two different screw trajectories in the treatment of oblique scaphoid fractures: A mechanical study on composite bone models
1Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
2Department of Biomechanics, Dokuz Eylül University, School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey
Keywords: Biomechanics, oblique scaphoid fractures, screw fixation, transverse fracture
Objectives: In this mechanical study, we aimed to compare two different screw trajectories in terms of durability against axial loads on oblique scaphoid fractures using composite bone models.
Materials and methods: Oblique osteotomies were made along the dorsal sulcus of 14 composite scaphoid bone models. Following this, all bone models were randomly classified. One group of bones were fixed with a screw placed perpendicular to the osteotomy line and the other group was fixed with a screw placed centrally down the long axis of the scaphoid bone. Each scaphoid bone model was positioned on a mechanical testing machine. Subsequently, axial loading tests were applied on each bone model to measure the amount of loading required to cause 2-mm displacement and failure on the osteotomy side and maximum displacement at the time of failure on scaphoid bone models.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference in load to 2-mm displacement and failure between the two groups (p>0.05). Also, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of maximum displacement seen on failure (p>0.05).
Conclusion: In our study, we found that the stability of the screws which laid perpendicular to the fracture line and parallel to the long axis of the scaphoid was the same in fixing oblique scaphoid fractures.
Citation: Kılıç B, Çalışkan M, Agar A, Uzun B, Ertem F, Gülabi D, et al. Comparison of two different screw trajectories in the treatment of oblique scaphoid fractures: A mechanical study on composite bone models. Jt Dis Relat Surg 2021;32(2):377-382.
The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.