Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Symphyseal internal rod fixation versus standard plate fixation for open book pelvic ring injuries: a biomechanical study


Osterhoff, G; Tiziani, S; Hafner, C; Ferguson, S J; Simmen, H-P; Werner, C M L (2016). Symphyseal internal rod fixation versus standard plate fixation for open book pelvic ring injuries: a biomechanical study. European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, 42(2):197-202.

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study investigates the biomechanical stability of a novel technique for symphyseal internal rod fixation (SYMFIX) using a multiaxial spinal screw-rod implant that allows for direct reduction and can be performed percutaneously and compares it to standard internal plate fixation of the symphysis.
METHODS: Standard plate fixation (PLATE, n = 6) and the SYMFIX (n = 6) were tested on pelvic composite models with a simulated open book injury using a universal testing machine. On a previously described testing setup, 500 consecutive cyclic loadings were applied with sinusoidal resulting forces of 200 N. Displacement under loading was measured using an optoelectronic camera system and construct rigidity was calculated as a function of load and displacement.
RESULTS: The rigidity of the PLATE construct was 122.8 N/mm (95 % CI: 110.7-134.8), rigidity of the SYMFIX construct 119.3 N/mm (95 % CI: 105.8-132.7). Displacement in the symphyseal area was mean 0.007 mm (95 % CI: 0.003-0.012) in the PLATE group and 0.021 mm (95 % CI: 0.011-0.031) in the SYMFIX group. Displacement in the sacroiliac joint area was mean 0.156 mm (95 % CI: 0.051-0.261) in the PLATE group and 0.120 mm (95 % CI: 0.039-0.201) in the SYMFIX group.
CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to standard internal plate fixation for the stabilization of open book pelvic ring injuries, symphyseal internal rod fixation using a multiaxial spinal screw-rod implant in vitro shows a similar rigidity and comparable low degrees of displacement.

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study investigates the biomechanical stability of a novel technique for symphyseal internal rod fixation (SYMFIX) using a multiaxial spinal screw-rod implant that allows for direct reduction and can be performed percutaneously and compares it to standard internal plate fixation of the symphysis.
METHODS: Standard plate fixation (PLATE, n = 6) and the SYMFIX (n = 6) were tested on pelvic composite models with a simulated open book injury using a universal testing machine. On a previously described testing setup, 500 consecutive cyclic loadings were applied with sinusoidal resulting forces of 200 N. Displacement under loading was measured using an optoelectronic camera system and construct rigidity was calculated as a function of load and displacement.
RESULTS: The rigidity of the PLATE construct was 122.8 N/mm (95 % CI: 110.7-134.8), rigidity of the SYMFIX construct 119.3 N/mm (95 % CI: 105.8-132.7). Displacement in the symphyseal area was mean 0.007 mm (95 % CI: 0.003-0.012) in the PLATE group and 0.021 mm (95 % CI: 0.011-0.031) in the SYMFIX group. Displacement in the sacroiliac joint area was mean 0.156 mm (95 % CI: 0.051-0.261) in the PLATE group and 0.120 mm (95 % CI: 0.039-0.201) in the SYMFIX group.
CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to standard internal plate fixation for the stabilization of open book pelvic ring injuries, symphyseal internal rod fixation using a multiaxial spinal screw-rod implant in vitro shows a similar rigidity and comparable low degrees of displacement.

Statistics

Citations

1 citation in Web of Science®
1 citation in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Department of Trauma Surgery
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Uncontrolled Keywords:Pelvic fracture; Pelvic ring injury; Internal fixation; External fixation; Symphyseal rod fixation
Language:English
Date:2016
Deposited On:23 Oct 2015 10:01
Last Modified:08 Dec 2017 14:33
Publisher:Springer
ISSN:1863-9933
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-015-0529-5
PubMed ID:26038047

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher