Biomechanical comparison of the anterior reverse PHILOS and locking compression plate extra-articular distal humerus plates for extra-articular distal humeral fractures

dc.contributor.authorKritsaneephaiboon A.
dc.contributor.authorWanchat S.
dc.contributor.authorKhongkanin T.
dc.contributor.authorKwanyuang A.
dc.contributor.authorSrewaradachpisal S.
dc.contributor.authorDissaneewate K.
dc.contributor.authorOrapiriyakul W.
dc.contributor.correspondenceKritsaneephaiboon A.
dc.contributor.otherMahidol University
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-25T18:22:25Z
dc.date.available2025-10-25T18:22:25Z
dc.date.issued2025-01-01
dc.description.abstractBackground: The locking compression plate extra-articular distal humeral plate (EADHP) is an anatomically pre-contoured plate that is used for extra-articular distal humeral fractures. However, there is currently no standard criterion for the internal fixation of this type of fracture. Moreover, the anterior reverse proximal humeral internal locking system (PHILOS) plate (ARPP) has been clinically applied as a new internal-fixation plate without testing in biomechanical studies. We aimed to compare the biomechanical properties of ARPP and EADHP for the definitive fixation of extra-articular distal humeral fractures. Methods: Eighteen composite humerus bones were cut at the distal humerus using an electrical saw to generate a fracture gap. Internal fixation via the ARPP or EADHP was performed following standard techniques. An Instron testing machine (Instron 8872) was used to evaluate biomechanical properties by applying bending torque, axial force, and torsional torque. Results: Fixations with both ARPP and EADHP could withstand forces that exceeded the physiological forces (200 N). Under axial compression, ARPP constructs demonstrated greater stiffness (668.9 ± 120.7 N/mm vs 171.2 ± 45.4 N/mm) and higher maximal load-to-failure (2,092.6 ± 305.2 N vs 907.0 ± 56.5 N) compared with EADHP, although these differences were not statistically significant. During anterior bending, ARPP provided significantly higher stiffness (17.8 ± 2.0 N/mm vs 13.9 ± 1.0 N/mm, p = 0.041), whereas EADHP showed a higher but non-significant load-to-failure. Under torsional loading, ARPP tended to exhibit greater stiffness in both external and internal rotation, as well as higher load-to-failure (31.1 ± 0.8 N m vs 26.0 ± 4.4 N m), but without statistical significance. Conclusion: ARPP demonstrated superior bending stiffness compared with the EADHP, while both constructs performed equivalently in axial compression and torsion. Therefore, ARPP can serve as an alternative internal-fixation method for extra-articular distal humeral fractures.
dc.identifier.citationFrontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology Vol.13 (2025)
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fbioe.2025.1672989
dc.identifier.eissn22964185
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105018906540
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/112740
dc.rights.holderSCOPUS
dc.subjectChemical Engineering
dc.subjectBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
dc.subjectMedicine
dc.subjectEngineering
dc.titleBiomechanical comparison of the anterior reverse PHILOS and locking compression plate extra-articular distal humerus plates for extra-articular distal humeral fractures
dc.typeArticle
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=105018906540&origin=inward
oaire.citation.titleFrontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
oaire.citation.volume13
oairecerif.author.affiliationPrince of Songkla University
oairecerif.author.affiliationKasetsart University
oairecerif.author.affiliationSiriraj Hospital
oairecerif.author.affiliationFaculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University

Files

Collections