J D Bastian1, M Savic2, J L Cullmann3, W D Zech4, V Djonov2, M J Keel5. 1. Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University of Bern, Inselspital, Freiburgstrasse 3, 3010 Bern, Switzerland; Institute of Anatomy, University of Bern, Switzerland. Electronic address: johannes.bastian@insel.ch. 2. Institute of Anatomy, University of Bern, Switzerland. 3. Department of Diagnostic, Interventional and Paediatric Radiology, University of Bern, Inselspital, Freiburgstrasse 3, 3010 Bern, Switzerland. 4. Institute of Forensic Medicine, Department of Forensic Medicine and Imaging, University of Bern, Switzerland. 5. Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University of Bern, Inselspital, Freiburgstrasse 3, 3010 Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As an alternative to the modified Stoppa approach, the Pararectus approach is used clinically for treatment of acetabular fractures involving the anterior column. The current study assessed the surgical exposure and the options for instrumentation using both of these approaches. METHODS: Surgical dissections were conducted on five human cadavers (all male, mean age 88 years (82-97)) using the modified Stoppa and the Pararectus approach, with the same skin incision length (10cm). Distal boundaries of the exposed bony surfaces were marked using a chisel. After removal of all soft-tissues, distances from the boundaries in the false and true pelvis were measured with reference to the pelvic brim. The exposed bone was coloured and calibrated digital images of each inner hemipelvis were taken. The amount of exposed surface using both approaches was assessed and represented as a percentage of the total bony surface of each hemipelvis. For instrumentation, a suprapectineal quadrilateral buttress plate was used. Screw lengths were documented, and three-dimensional CT reconstructions were performed to assess screw trajectories qualitatively. Wilcoxon's signed rank test for paired groups was used (level of significance: p<0.05). RESULTS: After utilization of the Pararectus approach, the distances from the farthest boundaries of exposed bone towards the pelvic brim were significantly higher in the false but not the true pelvis, compared to the modified Stoppa approach. The percentage (mean±SD) of exposed bone accessible after utilizing the Pararectus approach was 42±8%, compared to 29±6% using the modified Stoppa (p=0.011). In cadavers exposed by the Pararectus approach, screws placed for posterior fixation and as a posterior column screw were longer by factor 1.8 and 2.1, respectively (p<0.05), and screws could be placed more posteromedial towards the posterior inferior iliac spine or in line with the posterior column directed towards the ischial tuberosity. CONCLUSION: Compared to the modified Stoppa, the Pararectus approach facilitates a greater surgical access in the false pelvis, provides versatility for fracture fixation in the posterior pelvic ring and allows for the option to extend the approach without a new incision.
BACKGROUND: As an alternative to the modified Stoppa approach, the Pararectus approach is used clinically for treatment of acetabular fractures involving the anterior column. The current study assessed the surgical exposure and the options for instrumentation using both of these approaches. METHODS: Surgical dissections were conducted on five human cadavers (all male, mean age 88 years (82-97)) using the modified Stoppa and the Pararectus approach, with the same skin incision length (10cm). Distal boundaries of the exposed bony surfaces were marked using a chisel. After removal of all soft-tissues, distances from the boundaries in the false and true pelvis were measured with reference to the pelvic brim. The exposed bone was coloured and calibrated digital images of each inner hemipelvis were taken. The amount of exposed surface using both approaches was assessed and represented as a percentage of the total bony surface of each hemipelvis. For instrumentation, a suprapectineal quadrilateral buttress plate was used. Screw lengths were documented, and three-dimensional CT reconstructions were performed to assess screw trajectories qualitatively. Wilcoxon's signed rank test for paired groups was used (level of significance: p<0.05). RESULTS: After utilization of the Pararectus approach, the distances from the farthest boundaries of exposed bone towards the pelvic brim were significantly higher in the false but not the true pelvis, compared to the modified Stoppa approach. The percentage (mean±SD) of exposed bone accessible after utilizing the Pararectus approach was 42±8%, compared to 29±6% using the modified Stoppa (p=0.011). In cadavers exposed by the Pararectus approach, screws placed for posterior fixation and as a posterior column screw were longer by factor 1.8 and 2.1, respectively (p<0.05), and screws could be placed more posteromedial towards the posterior inferior iliac spine or in line with the posterior column directed towards the ischial tuberosity. CONCLUSION: Compared to the modified Stoppa, the Pararectus approach facilitates a greater surgical access in the false pelvis, provides versatility for fracture fixation in the posterior pelvic ring and allows for the option to extend the approach without a new incision.
Authors: Florian Baumann; Paul Schmitz; Daniel Mahr; Maximilian Kerschbaum; Axel Gänsslen; Michael Nerlich; Michael Worlicek Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 2.359