PURPOSE: We evaluated the biomechanical characteristics of the transiliac internal fixator (TIFI) as compared to two well-established methods of internal posterior pelvic ring fixation. METHODS: Six freshly frozen human pelves were used for simulated single-leg stance loading of an AO type C injury model (pubic symphysis diastasis and unilateral sacroiliac joint disruption). The symphysis rupture was stabilized with a dynamic compression plate. Afterwards the three internal stabilization systems (TIFI, iliosacral screws and ventral plate osteosynthesis) were analysed. Fragment movement was measured in a contact-free manner with a stereophotometric infrared system. RESULTS: No significant differences in the three-dimensional deformation tolerated by the TIFI as compared to the other internal fixation systems were found. CONCLUSIONS: The transiliac internal fixator provides the same biomechanical stability as the other reference implants tested. We suggest the use of this device as a suitable alternative to the other implants.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the biomechanical characteristics of the transiliac internal fixator (TIFI) as compared to two well-established methods of internal posterior pelvic ring fixation. METHODS: Six freshly frozen human pelves were used for simulated single-leg stance loading of an AO type C injury model (pubic symphysis diastasis and unilateral sacroiliac joint disruption). The symphysis rupture was stabilized with a dynamic compression plate. Afterwards the three internal stabilization systems (TIFI, iliosacral screws and ventral plate osteosynthesis) were analysed. Fragment movement was measured in a contact-free manner with a stereophotometric infrared system. RESULTS: No significant differences in the three-dimensional deformation tolerated by the TIFI as compared to the other internal fixation systems were found. CONCLUSIONS: The transiliac internal fixator provides the same biomechanical stability as the other reference implants tested. We suggest the use of this device as a suitable alternative to the other implants.
Authors: C M A van Zwienen; E W van den Bosch; C J Snijders; G J Kleinrensink; A B van Vugt Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: T Pohlemann; H Tscherne; F Baumgärtel; H J Egbers; E Euler; F Maurer; M Fell; E Mayr; W W Quirini; W Schlickewei; A Weinberg Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 1996-03 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: Franz Josef Müller; Wolfgang Stosiek; Michael Zellner; Rainer Neugebauer; Bernd Füchtmeier Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2013-08-31 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Maximilian Kerschbaum; Nadine Hausmann; Michael Worlicek; Christian Pfeifer; Michael Nerlich; Paul Schmitz Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: William W Cross; Sigurd H Berven; Nick Slater; Jennifer N Lehrman; Anna G U S Newcomb; Brian P Kelly Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2018-10-15