G Model

JINJ-6117; No. of Pages 1 Injury, Int. J. Care Injured xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Injury journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/injury

Letter to the Editor Plate selection for fixation of extra-articular distal humerus fractures: A biomechanical comparison of three different implants We have read the biomechanical study entitled ‘Plate selection for fixation of extra-articular distal humerus fractures: A biomechanical comparison of three different implants.’ By John A. Scolaro et al. with great interest in the issue of Injury 45(12), (2014), 2040–2044 [1]. We would like to congratulate the authors for their valuable biomechanical study. However, we would like to raise an important issue about the bone models used in the study. According to the official website of the company, bone models used in this biomechanical study (model number 1028, Pacific Research Laboratories, Inc., Vashon, WA) are made of foam cortical shell which include cancellous inner material. It is highlighted that they are ideal for large-scale surgical skills courses or different exercises [2]. The studies investigating the biomechanical properties of the implants or surgical methods of the humerus bone are usually performed with the fourth generation Sawbones [3,4]. These biomechanical models (model number 3404, Pacific Research Laboratories, Inc., Vashon, WA) are producted for the use of biomechanical testing according to the official website of the company [5]. We would like to share this technical detail with the authors and the readers. We believe that using biomechanical test materials that are used as an alternative testing medium to human cadaver bone would provide a more reliable and valuable experiment. Once again, we congratulate the authors. Conflict of interest All authors confirmed that there are no conflicts of interest in the study.

References [1] Scolaro JA, Hsu JE, Svach DJ, Mehta S. Plate selection for fixation of extraarticular distal humerus fractures: a biomechanical comparison of three different implants. Injury 2014;45(12):2040–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.08.036. [2] http://www.sawbones.com/Catalog/Orthopaedic%20Models/Humerus/1028. [3] Penzkofer R, Hungerer S, Wipf F, von Oldenburg G, Augat P. Anatomical plate configuration affects mechanical performance in distal humerus fractures. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon) 2010;25(10):972–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.07.005. [4] Virkus WV, Goldberg SH, Lorenz EP. A comparison of compressive force generation by plating and intramedullary nailing techniques in a transverse diaphyseal humerus fracture model. J Trauma 2008 Jul;65(1):103–8. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181568ce7. [5] http://www.sawbones.com/Catalog/Biomechanical/Composite%20Bones/ 3404.

Serhat Mutlu Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey Harun Mutlu Department of Orthopaedics, Taksim Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey Mehmet Erdil* Istanbul Medipol University, Department of Orthopaedics, Istanbul, Turkey *Corresponding author at: Istanbul Medipol University, TEM Avrupa otoyolu, Goztepe Cikisi, No: 1, Bagcilar, 34214 Istanbul, Turkey. Tel.: +90 5324249732; fax: +90 2124531700 E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Erdil).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2015.03.008 0020–1383/ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Mutlu S, et al. Plate selection for fixation of extra-articular distal humerus fractures: A biomechanical comparison of three different implants. Injury (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2015.03.008