OBJECTIVE: To compare the biomechanical difference of 4 kinds of internal fixations for acetabular fracture in quadrilateral area. METHODS: The transverse fracture models were created in 16 hemipelves specimens from 8 adult males, and were randomly divided into 4 groups according to different internal fixation methods (n = 4): infrapectineal buttress reconstruction plate (group A), infrapectineal buttress locking reconstruction plate (group B), reconstruction plate combined with trans-plate quadrilateral screws (group C), and anterior reconstruction plate-lag screw (group D). Then the horizontal displacement, longitudinal displacement of fractures, and axial stiffness were measured and counted to compare the stability after continuous vertical loading. RESULTS: Under the same loading, the horizontal and longitudinal displacements of groups A, B, C, and D were decreased gradually; when the loading reached 1 800 N, the longitudinal displacement of group A was more than 3.00 mm, indicating the failure criterion, while the axial stiffness increased gradually. Under 200 N loading, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in horizontal displacement, longitudinal displacement, and axial stiffness among 4 groups. When the loading reached 600-1 800 N, significant differences were found in horizontal displacement, longitudinal displacement, and axial stiffness among 4 groups (P < 0.05) except the horizontal displacement between groups C and D (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: For acetabular fracture in the quadrilateral area, anterior reconstruction plate-lag screw for internal fixation has highest stability, followed by reconstruction plate combined with trans-plate quadrilateral screws, and they are better than infrapectineal buttress reconstruction plate and infrapectineal buttress locking reconstruction plate.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the biomechanical difference of 4 kinds of internal fixations for acetabular fracture in quadrilateral area. METHODS: The transverse fracture models were created in 16 hemipelves specimens from 8 adult males, and were randomly divided into 4 groups according to different internal fixation methods (n = 4): infrapectineal buttress reconstruction plate (group A), infrapectineal buttress locking reconstruction plate (group B), reconstruction plate combined with trans-plate quadrilateral screws (group C), and anterior reconstruction plate-lag screw (group D). Then the horizontal displacement, longitudinal displacement of fractures, and axial stiffness were measured and counted to compare the stability after continuous vertical loading. RESULTS: Under the same loading, the horizontal and longitudinal displacements of groups A, B, C, and D were decreased gradually; when the loading reached 1 800 N, the longitudinal displacement of group A was more than 3.00 mm, indicating the failure criterion, while the axial stiffness increased gradually. Under 200 N loading, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in horizontal displacement, longitudinal displacement, and axial stiffness among 4 groups. When the loading reached 600-1 800 N, significant differences were found in horizontal displacement, longitudinal displacement, and axial stiffness among 4 groups (P < 0.05) except the horizontal displacement between groups C and D (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: For acetabular fracture in the quadrilateral area, anterior reconstruction plate-lag screw for internal fixation has highest stability, followed by reconstruction plate combined with trans-plate quadrilateral screws, and they are better than infrapectineal buttress reconstruction plate and infrapectineal buttress locking reconstruction plate.