E Mcdonald1, A A Theologis2, P Horst1, U Kandemir1, M Pekmezci1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Trauma Institute, University of California-San Francisco (UCSF)/San Francisco General Hospital, 2550 23rd Str., Bldg. 9, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic Trauma Institute, University of California-San Francisco (UCSF)/San Francisco General Hospital, 2550 23rd Str., Bldg. 9, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA. Alekos.Theologis@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed at evaluating the additional stability that is provided by anterior external and internal fixators in an unstable pelvic fracture model (OTA 61-C). METHODS: An unstable pelvic fracture (OTA 61-C) was created in 27 synthetic pelves by making a 5-mm gap through the sacral foramina (posterior injury) and an ipsilateral pubic rami fracture (anterior injury). The posterior injury was fixed with either a single iliosacral (IS) screw, a single trans-iliac, trans-sacral (TS) screw, or two iliosacral screws (S1S2). Two anterior fixation techniques were utilized: external fixation (Ex-Fix) and supra-acetabular external fixation and internal fixation (In-Fix); supra-acetabular pedicle screws connected with a single subcutaneous spinal rod. The specimens were tested using a nondestructive single-leg stance model. Peak-to-peak (P2P) displacement and rotation and conditioning displacement (CD) were calculated. RESULTS: The Ex-Fix group failed in 83.3 % of specimens with concomitant single-level posterior fixation (Total: 15/18-7 of 9 IS fixation, 8 of 9 TS fixation), and 0 % (0/9) of specimens with concomitant two-level (S1S2) posterior fixation. All specimens with the In-Fix survived testing except for two specimens treated with In-Fix combined with IS fixation. Trans-sacral fixation had higher pubic rotation and greater sacral and pubic displacement than S1S2 (p < 0.05). Rotation of the pubis and sacrum was not different between In-Fix constructs combined with single-level IS and TS fixation. CONCLUSION: In this model of an unstable pelvic fracture (OTA 61-C), anterior fixation with an In-Fix was biomechanically superior to an anterior Ex-Fix in the setting of single-level posterior fixation. There was no biomechanical difference between the In-Fix and Ex-Fix when each was combined with two levels of posterior sacral fixation.
PURPOSE: This study aimed at evaluating the additional stability that is provided by anterior external and internal fixators in an unstable pelvic fracture model (OTA 61-C). METHODS: An unstable pelvic fracture (OTA 61-C) was created in 27 synthetic pelves by making a 5-mm gap through the sacral foramina (posterior injury) and an ipsilateral pubic rami fracture (anterior injury). The posterior injury was fixed with either a single iliosacral (IS) screw, a single trans-iliac, trans-sacral (TS) screw, or two iliosacral screws (S1S2). Two anterior fixation techniques were utilized: external fixation (Ex-Fix) and supra-acetabular external fixation and internal fixation (In-Fix); supra-acetabular pedicle screws connected with a single subcutaneous spinal rod. The specimens were tested using a nondestructive single-leg stance model. Peak-to-peak (P2P) displacement and rotation and conditioning displacement (CD) were calculated. RESULTS: The Ex-Fix group failed in 83.3 % of specimens with concomitant single-level posterior fixation (Total: 15/18-7 of 9 IS fixation, 8 of 9 TS fixation), and 0 % (0/9) of specimens with concomitant two-level (S1S2) posterior fixation. All specimens with the In-Fix survived testing except for two specimens treated with In-Fix combined with IS fixation. Trans-sacral fixation had higher pubic rotation and greater sacral and pubic displacement than S1S2 (p < 0.05). Rotation of the pubis and sacrum was not different between In-Fix constructs combined with single-level IS and TS fixation. CONCLUSION: In this model of an unstable pelvic fracture (OTA 61-C), anterior fixation with an In-Fix was biomechanically superior to an anterior Ex-Fix in the setting of single-level posterior fixation. There was no biomechanical difference between the In-Fix and Ex-Fix when each was combined with two levels of posterior sacral fixation.
Authors: Peter A Cole; Erich M Gauger; Jack Anavian; Thuan V Ly; Robert A Morgan; Archie A Heddings Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: J L Marsh; Theddy F Slongo; Julie Agel; J Scott Broderick; William Creevey; Thomas A DeCoster; Laura Prokuski; Michael S Sirkin; Bruce Ziran; Brad Henley; Laurent Audigé Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Jonathan M Vigdorchik; Amanda O Esquivel; Xin Jin; King H Yang; Ndidi A Onwudiwe; Rahul Vaidya Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Erik A Hasenboehler; Philip F Stahel; Allison Williams; Wade R Smith; Justin T Newman; David L Symonds; Steven J Morgan Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2011-05-10
Authors: Christian Zeckey; Adrian Cavalcanti Kußmaul; Eduardo M Suero; Christian Kammerlander; Axel Greiner; Matthias Woiczinski; Christian Braun; Wilhelm Flatz; Wolfgang Boecker; Christopher A Becker Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2020-07-18 Impact factor: 2.175
Authors: Christopher Alexander Becker; Adrian Cavalcanti Kussmaul; Eduardo Manuel Suero; Markus Regauer; Matthias Woiczinski; Christian Braun; Wilhelm Flatz; Oliver Pieske; Christian Kammerlander; Wolfgang Boecker; Axel Greiner Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2019-12-27 Impact factor: 2.359