Literature DB >> 27564231

Biomechanical comparison of augmented versus non-augmented sacroiliac screws in a novel hemi-pelvis test model.

Niklas Grüneweller1,2, Michael J Raschke2, Ivan Zderic1, Daniel Widmer1, Dirk Wähnert2, Boyko Gueorguiev1, Robert Geoff Richards1, Thomas Fuchs3, Markus Windolf1.   

Abstract

Operative treatment of sacral insufficiency fractures is frequently being complicated by osteopenic bone properties. Cement augmentation of implanted sacroiliac screws may lead to superior construct stability and prevent mechanical complications. A novel hemi-pelvis test model with dissected symphysis was developed. Five fresh-frozen cadaveric pelvises were vertically osteotomized at the sacrum on both sides and fixed with sacroiliac screws in both corridors of the first sacral vertebral body. One side was randomly augmented with bone cement. Cyclic testing consisting of torsional loading (±2.5 Nm) combined with progressively increasing axial loading (+50 N compression, -10 N traction, ±0,01 N/cycle) was performed until failure; simulated physiological loads derived from inverse dynamic calculations. The fixation was analyzed fluoroscopically quantifying screw migrations and assessing failure mechanisms. Failure modes were cut-out, pull-out, screw-out, and washer penetration. Motion at fracture site was analyzed via optical motion tracking. Unscrewing was provoked four times with non-augmented and twice with augmented screws. When focusing on the sacral region only, cement augmentation significantly improved screw fixation in terms of increased number of cycles to failure (p = 0.043). However, when considering overall construct stability, there was no significant difference between augmented and non-augmented state due to washer penetration at the iliac bone. The generated hemi-pelvis model was found to be valid due to the reproduction of the clinically observed failure mode (unscrewing). Unscrewing was not fully prevented by cement augmentation. Augmentation effects stability at the screw tip, but particularly in porotic bone, failure may shift to the next weak point.
© 2016 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 35:1485-1493, 2017. © 2016 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  augmentation; insufficiency fracture; osteoporosis; sacral fracture; screw

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27564231     DOI: 10.1002/jor.23401

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Res        ISSN: 0736-0266            Impact factor:   3.494


  15 in total

Review 1.  [Traumatology in the elderly : Multimodal prevention of delirium and use of augmentation techniques].

Authors:  D Wähnert; A Roos; J Glasbrenner; K Ilting-Reuke; P Ohrmann; G Hempel; T Duning; N Roeder; M J Raschke
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 2.  [Cement augmentation and bone graft substitutes-Materials and biomechanics].

Authors:  Boyko Gueorguiev; Mark Lenz
Journal:  Unfallchirurgie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-04-29

3.  [Trends in the surgical treatment of fractures of the pelvic ring : A nationwide analysis of operations and procedures code (OPS) data between 2005 and 2017].

Authors:  Moritz F Lodde; J Christoph Katthagen; Oliver Riesenbeck; Michael J Raschke; René Hartensuer
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 1.000

4.  [Application of anterior subcutaneous internal fixator combined with posterior plate in treatment of unstable pelvic fractures].

Authors:  Jianchao Wang; Weichao Sheng; Wensheng Liao
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2020-07-15

5.  Local bone quality measure and construct failure prediction: a biomechanical study on distal femur fractures.

Authors:  Thomas Vordemvenne; Dirk Wähnert; Dominic Gehweiler; Ursula Styger; Boyko Gueorguiev; Christian Colcuc
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-02-15       Impact factor: 2.928

6.  In-screw polymethylmethacrylate-augmented sacroiliac screw for the treatment of fragility fractures of the pelvis: a prospective, observational study with 1-year follow-up.

Authors:  Andreas Höch; Philipp Pieroh; Ralf Henkelmann; Christoph Josten; Jörg Böhme
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Symphyseal fixation in open book injuries cannot fully compensate anterior SI joint injury-A biomechanical study in a two-leg alternating load model.

Authors:  Fabian M Stuby; Mark Lenz; Stefan Doebele; Yash Agarwal; Hristo Skulev; Björn G Ochs; Jörn Zwingmann; Boyko Gueorguiev
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  A novel computer navigation method for accurate percutaneous sacroiliac screw implantation: A technical note and literature review.

Authors:  Tong Yu; Shuang Zheng; Xiwen Zhang; Dongsheng Wang; Mingyang Kang; Rongpeng Dong; Yang Qu; Jianwu Zhao
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 1.817

9.  Comparative Study of Percutaneous Sacroiliac Screw with or without TiRobot Assistance for Treating Pelvic Posterior Ring Fractures.

Authors:  Tao Long; Kai-Nan Li; Jin-Hua Gao; Tian-Hu Liu; Jian-Song Mu; Xue-Jun Wang; Chao Peng; Zhi-Yong He
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2019-05-11       Impact factor: 2.071

10.  Biomechanical Comparison of Five Fixation Techniques for Unstable Fragility Fractures of the Pelvic Ring.

Authors:  Moritz F Lodde; J Christoph Katthagen; Clemens O Schopper; Ivan Zderic; Geoff Richards; Boyko Gueorguiev; Michael J Raschke; René Hartensuer
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 4.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.