Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 21, 2025
A Minimally Invasive Model to Analyze Endochondral Fracture Healing in Mice Under Standardized Biomechanical Conditions
Published on: March 22, 2018
Biomechanical comparison between low profile 2.7 mm distal locking hook plate and 3.5 mm distal locking hook plate
Jeong-Woo Lee1, Min-Jun Song1, Sung-Jae Lee1
1Department of Biomedical Engineering, Inje University, Gimhae, Korea.
Purpose:
Although hook plate fixation is popularly used, concerns exist regarding periprosthetic fractures and the necessity to remove the plate to prevent subacromial erosion and subsequent acromion fracture, due to its non-anatomical design. We hypothesized that a low profile 2.7 mm distal locking hook plate would provide comparable stability to a properly used 3.5 mm distal locking hook plate MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3.5 mm distal locking plate (type 1) and a low profile 2.7 mm plate (type 2) were assessed by finite element analysis. Peak von Mises stress (PVMS) was calculated on the acromion's undersurface, clavicle shaft, and hook, focusing on how these stresses varied with the number and placement of distal locking screws.
Results:
Increased distal screws in both types led to lower PVMS on the acromion's undersurface and the hook, with the lowest acromion PVMS observed in type 2 with three distal screws, and on the hook in type 1 with two distal screws. Increasing the number of distal screws similarly reduced PVMS on the clavicle shaft, with the lowest in type 1 with two distal screws. In both plate types, the most posterior distal locking screw played a crucial role in distributing stress across the acromion and the hook.
Conclusion:
The low profile 2.7 mm distal locking hook plate showed comparable biomechanical results to the 3.5 mm distal locking hook plate. Increasing the number of distal locking screws showed less stress concentration on the bone and hook in both models. The most posterior distal locking screw showed an essential role in stress distribution.
