Double-Screw Osteosynthesis in an Unstable Scaphoid Fracture Model: A Biomechanical Comparison of Two Screw Configurations

Purpose Although there is evidence that a single headless compression screw is sufficient for fixation of most scaphoid fractures, double-screw osteosynthesis has been shown to result in higher failure strength and stiffness than a single screw. However, the biomechanical effect of different screw configurations has not been determined.Methods A standardized unstable fracture model was produced in 28 cadaveric scaphoids. Specimens were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 fixation groups using 2 internal compression screws positioned in either the sagittal or coronal plane. A specimen-specific 3-dimensionallyeprinted customized screw placement and osteotomy device was developed using computer-aided design-generated models derived from computed tomography scan data of each individual scaphoid. Load to failure and stiffness of the repair constructs were evaluated using a mechanical testing system. Results There were no significant differences in size, weight, and density between the scaphoid specimens. The average distance between screws was significantly greater in the sagittal group than in the coronal group. There were no significant differences between the coronal and sagittal aligned double screws in load to 2 mm displacement (mean coronal 180.9 +/- 109.7 N; mean sagittal 156.0 +/- 85.8 N), load to failure (mean coronal 275.9 +/- 150.6 N; mean sagittal 248.0 +/- 109.5 N), stiffness (mean coronal 111.7 +/- 67.3 N/mm; mean sagittal 101.2 +/- 45.1 N/mm), and energy absorption (mean coronal 472.6 +/- 261.4 mJ; mean sagittal 443.5 +/- 272.7 mJ).Conclusions There are no significant biomechanical differences between the sagittal or coronal aligned double headless compression screws in a scaphoid fracture model with bone loss. Clinical relevance In cases where double-screw fixation of the scaphoid is being considered, the placement of double screws can be at the discretion of the surgeon, and can be dictated by ease of access, surgical preference, and fracture orientation. (J Hand Surg Am. 2022;47(11):1118.e1-e8.Copyright (c) 2022 by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. All rights reserved.)