Kentaro Futamura1, Tomonori Baba2, Atsuhiko Mogami1, Itaru Morohashi1, Osamu Obayashi1, Hideaki Iwase3, Kazuo Kaneko4. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Juntendo University Shizuoka Hospital, 1129 Nagaoka, Izunokuni-shi, Shizuoka, Japan. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan. tobaba@juntendo.ac.jp. 3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Juntendo University Shizuoka Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the fixation power of sacroiliac rod fixation (SIRF), which was developed based on our original "within ring" concept to exclude the lumbar vertebra from the fixation range, and spinopelvic fixation (SPF) in a biomechanical experiment. METHODS: SPF and SIRF were applied to the posterior element in four bones each with the pelvic ring fracture model (AO/OTA classification 61-C1.3). A 300-N axial force was loaded on the fifth lumbar vertebra of the simulated pelvis. Then the stiffness (N/m) and deformation (mm) of SPF and SIRF were determined, and the final displacement (mm) of the fracture region and angular deformity (degrees) were measured. Displacements were measured using the markers at two sites of the sacral fracture [upper margin of the sacral ala (Ala) and second sacral vertebra level (S2)] and one site of the pubic symphysis (PS), and angular deformity was measured at Ala and PS. RESULTS: In SPF and SIRF, the mean stiffnesses and deformations showed no statistically significant difference. Only the vertical displacement at Ala differed significantly between SPF and SIRF (p = 0. 045), and the fixing force of SPF was higher. There was no other significant difference in vertical and horizontal displacement. The mean angular deformities also showed no significant difference between the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: In biomechanics experiments, vertical resistance was stronger in SPF-treated than SIRF-treated bone, but stiffness and deformation, horizontal resistance, and angular deformity did not differ significantly.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the fixation power of sacroiliac rod fixation (SIRF), which was developed based on our original "within ring" concept to exclude the lumbar vertebra from the fixation range, and spinopelvic fixation (SPF) in a biomechanical experiment. METHODS: SPF and SIRF were applied to the posterior element in four bones each with the pelvic ring fracture model (AO/OTA classification 61-C1.3). A 300-N axial force was loaded on the fifth lumbar vertebra of the simulated pelvis. Then the stiffness (N/m) and deformation (mm) of SPF and SIRF were determined, and the final displacement (mm) of the fracture region and angular deformity (degrees) were measured. Displacements were measured using the markers at two sites of the sacral fracture [upper margin of the sacral ala (Ala) and second sacral vertebra level (S2)] and one site of the pubic symphysis (PS), and angular deformity was measured at Ala and PS. RESULTS: In SPF and SIRF, the mean stiffnesses and deformations showed no statistically significant difference. Only the vertical displacement at Ala differed significantly between SPF and SIRF (p = 0. 045), and the fixing force of SPF was higher. There was no other significant difference in vertical and horizontal displacement. The mean angular deformities also showed no significant difference between the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: In biomechanics experiments, vertical resistance was stronger in SPF-treated than SIRF-treated bone, but stiffness and deformation, horizontal resistance, and angular deformity did not differ significantly.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomechanical study; Sacroiliac rod fixation; Spinopelvic fixation; Unstable pelvic ring injuries
Authors: Paul Park; Hugh J Garton; Vishal C Gala; Julian T Hoff; John E McGillicuddy Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2004-09-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Carlo Bellabarba; Thomas A Schildhauer; Alexander R Vaccaro; Jens R Chapman Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2006-05-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Thomas A Schildhauer; Carlo Bellabarba; Sean E Nork; David P Barei; Milton L Chip Routt; Jens R Chapman Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: E Mouhsine; M Wettstein; C Schizas; O Borens; C-H Blanc; P-F Leyvraz; N Theumann; R Garofalo Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2005-04-21 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Thomas A Schildhauer; William R Ledoux; Jens R Chapman; M Bradford Henley; Allan F Tencer; M L Chip Routt Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: S Samuel Bederman; Jeffrey M Hassan; Kalpit N Shah; P Douglas Kiester; Nitin N Bhatia; David P Zamorano Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-07-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jianxiong Zheng; Xiaoreng Feng; Jie Xiang; Fei Liu; Frankie K L Leung; Bin Chen Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2021-10-30 Impact factor: 2.359