Dataset Information

Modified pedicle screw-rod versus anterior subcutaneous internal pelvic fixation for unstable anterior pelvic ring fracture: a retrospective study and finite element analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study compared the stability and clinical outcomes of modified pedicle screw-rod fixation (MPSRF) and anterior subcutaneous internal pelvic fixation (INFIX) for the treatment of anterior pelvic ring fractures using the Tornetta and Matta grading system and finite element analyses (FEA).

Methods

In a retrospective review of a consecutive patient series, 63 patients with Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA)/Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) type B or C pelvic ring fractures were treated by MPRSF (n = 30) or INFIX (n = 33). The main outcome measures were the Majeed score, incidence of complications, and adverse outcomes, and fixation stability as evaluated by finite element analysis.

Results

Sixty-three patients were included in the study, with an average age of 34.4 and 36.2 in modified group and conventional group, respectively. Two groups did not differ in terms of the injury severity score, OTA classification, cause of injury, and time to pelvic surgery. However, the MPSRF group had a rate of higher satisfactory results according to the Tornetta and Matta grading system than the conventional group (73.33% vs 63.63%) as well as a higher Majeed score (81.5 ± 10.4 vs 76.3 ± 11.2), and these differences were statistically significant at 6 months post-surgery. FEA showed that MPSRF was stiffer and more stable than INFIX and had a lower risk of implant failure.

Conclusions

Both MPSRF and INFIX provide acceptable biomechanical stability for the treatment of unstable anterior pelvic ring fractures. However, MPSRF provides better fixation stability and a lower risk of implant failure, and can thus lead to better clinical outcomes. Therefore, MPSRF should be more widely applied to anterior pelvic ring fractures.

SUBMITTER: Pan ZH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8314600 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to analyse the biomechanical characteristics of pedicle screws with different placement methods and diameters in the treatment of Tile C1 pelvic fractures by finite element simulation technology and to compare them with the plate fixation model to verify the effectiveness of pedicle screw fixation.MethodsA three-dimensional digital model of a normal pelvis was obtained using computed tomography images. A finite element model of a normal pelvis containing major ligaments was built and validated (Model 1). Based on the verified normal pelvis finite element model, a Tile C1 pelvic fracture model was established (Model 2), and then a plate fixation model (Model 3) and a pedicle screw fixation model with different screw placement methods and diameters were established (Models 4-15). For all pelvic fracture fixation models, a vertical load of 500 N was applied on the upper surface of the sacrum to test the displacement and stress distribution of the pelvis in the standing state with both legs.ResultsThe finite element simulation results showed the maximum displacement of Model 1 and Models 3-15 to be less than 1 mm. The overall maximum displacement of Models 4-15 was slightly larger than that of Model 3 (the maximum difference was 177.91×10-3 mm), but the maximum displacement of iliac bone and internal fixation in Models 4-15 was smaller than that of Model 3. The overall maximum stress (maximum stress of the ilium) and maximum stress of internal fixation in Models 4-15 were less than those in Model 3. The maximum displacement difference and maximum stress difference at the fracture of the pubic ramus between each fixed model were less than 0.01 mm and 1 MPa, respectively. The greater the diameter and number of pedicle screws were, the smaller the maximum displacement and stress of the pelvic fracture models were.The maximum displacement and stress of the pelvic fracture models of the screws placed on the injured side of the pubic region were smaller than the screws on the healthy side.ConclusionBoth the anterior and posterior pelvic rings are fixed with a pedicle screw rod system for treatment of Tile C1 pelvic fractures, which can obtain sufficient biomechanical stability and can be used as a suitable alternative to other implants.The greater the diameter and number of pedicle screws were, the greater the pelvic stability was, and the greater was the stability of the screws placed on the injured side of the pubic region than the screws on the healthy side.

Project description:PurposeA hybrid pedicle screw system for minimally invasive spinal fixation was developed based on the uniplanar pedicle screw construct and a new intermediate screw. Its biomechanical performance was evaluated using finite element (FE) analysis.MethodsA T12-L2 FE model was established to simulate the L1 vertebral compression fracture with Magerl classification A1.2. Six fixation models were developed to simulate the posterior pedicle screw fracture fixation, which were divided into two subgroups with different construct configurations: (1) six-monoaxial/uniplanar/polyaxial pedicle screw constructs and (2) four-monoaxial/uniplanar/polyaxial pedicle screw constructs with the new intermediate screw. After model validation, flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation with 7.5 Nm moments and preloading of 500 N vertical compression were applied to the FE models to compare the biomechanical performances of the six fixation models with maximum von Mises stress, range of motion, and maximum displacement of the vertebra.ResultsUnder four loading scenarios, the maximum von Mises stresses were found to be at the roots of the upper or lower pedicle screws. In the cases of flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation, the maximum von Mises stress of the uniplanar screw construct lay in between the monoaxial and polyaxial screw constructs in each subgroup. Considering lateral bending, the uniplanar screw construct enabled to lower the maximum von Mises stress than monoaxial and polyaxial pedicle screw constructs in each subgroup. Two subgroups showed comparable results of the maximum von Mises stress on the endplates, range of motion of T12-L1, and maximum displacement of T12 between the corresponding constructs with the new intermediate screw or not.ConclusionsThe observations shown in this study verified that the hybrid uniplanar pedicle screw system exhibited comparable biomechanical performance as compared with other posterior short-segment constructs. The potential advantage of this new fixation system may provide researchers and clinical practitioners an alternative for minimally invasive spinal fixation with vertebral augmentation.

Project description:BackgroundThe anterior pedicle screw (APS) technique for L5 and S1 is crucial for proper anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). This study aimed to determine the projection, screw trajectory angle, and bone screw passageway length (BSPL), as well as the screw insertion regularity and the operating area within which it is safe to perform insertion.MethodsForty patients with low back pain, all of whom had lumbar computed tomography scans available, was included in this retrospective analysis. Radiographic parameters were measured, including: the distances from the projection to the upper endplate, lower endplate, and midline; the transverse and sagittal screw angles; and the BSPL. In addition, 10 fresh adult cadaveric lumbosacral spine segments were selected to determine the safe anatomic area in which to operate. Finally, APSs were inserted in L5 and S1 to determine the regularity of APS insertion.ResultsWe measured the anterior projection parameters, including: the distances to the upper endplate (L5: 12.5±1.3 mm; S1: 4.54±0.87 mm), lower endplate (L5: 17.3±1.6 mm), and midline (L5: 6.6±0.7 mm; S1: 6.6±0.6 mm); the screw trajectory angle, including the transverse screw angle (L5: 25.3±2.8°; S1: 25.7±2.6°), sagittal screw angle (L5: 17.1±1.7°; S1: 22.4±1.1°); and the BSPL (L5: 48.6±3.5 mm; S1: 48.0±3.5 mm). The regularity of APS insertion in L5 and S1 was determined. Upon the needle reaching a point in the lateral view, it reached the corresponding point in the anteroposterior (AP) view. The anatomic parameters of the safe operating area were as follows: the distance from the abdominal aortic bifurcation to the L5 lower edge (40.50±9.40 mm); the distance from the common iliac vein confluence to the L5 lower edge (27.80±8.60 mm); and the horizontal distance from the inner edge of the common iliac vein to the L5 lower edge (37.50±1.30 mm). We also determined the distance between S1 holes (29.30±1.30 mm), the L5/S1 intervertebral height (17.20±1.50 mm), and the safe operating area (2,058.20±84.30 mm2).ConclusionsThis study has determined the projection, screw trajectory angle, and BSPL of APSs in L5 and S1, their insertion regularity, and the area in which the operation can be safely performed.