Ahmet Özgür YILDIRIM, Mehmet YÜCENS, Nevres H. AYDOĞAN, Kadir Bahadır ALEMDAROĞLU, Serkan İLTAR, Ahmet ÖZMERİÇ

A comparative biomechanical analysis of suprapectineal and infrapectineal fixation on acetabular anterior column fracture by finite element modeling

Background/aim: The aim of this study is to compare the stability and implant stresses of suprapectineal plate with infrapectineal platein three subconfigurations of the screw types.Materials and methods: The stabilities of different fixation methods were compared by finite element analysis on six models. Threeinfrapectineal and three suprapectineal models each with locked, unlocked, or combined screws were employed. Three-dimensionalfinite element stress analysis was performed by using isotropic materials with a load of 2.3 kN applied at standing positions. Motion atthe fracture line was measured on four different points located on the pubic and iliac sides of the fracture line.Results: Infrapectineal plate fixation with unlocked screws was found to be the most stable fixation method with 0.006 mm displacementof fragments in all axes at standing positions. The suprapectineal unlocked method was found to be the most unstable in standingpositions with maximum displacement values of 0.46 mm vertical shear movement in the x-axis, –0.14 mm displacement in the y-axis,and –0.33 mm lateral shear in the z-axis.Conclusion: The infrapectineal unlocked plate supplies the most stable fixation with the least implant stress, contrary to thesuprapectineal unlocked plate, which has the lowest stability and highest implant stresses.

PDF

___

1. Letournel E. The treatment of acetabular fractures through the ilioinguinal approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993; 292: 62-76.
2. Matta J. Fractures of the acetabulum: accuracy of reduction and clinical results in patients managed operatively within three weeks after the injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996; 78: 1632-1645.
3. Cole JD, Bolhofner BR. Acetabular fracture fixation via a modified Stoppa limited intrapelvic approach. Description of operative technique and preliminary treatment results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994; 305: 112-123.
4. Hirvensalo E, Lindahl J, Kiljunen V. Modified and new approaches for pelvic and acetabular surgery. Injury 2007; 38: 431-441.
5. Kistler BJ, Smithson IR, Cooper SA, Cox JL, Nayak AN, Santoni BG. Are quadrilateral surface buttress plates comparable to traditional forms of transverse acetabular fracture fixation? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472: 3353-3361.
6. Bastian JD, Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Keel MJB. Mid-term results in relation to age and analysis of predictive factors after fixation of acetabular fractures using the modified Stoppa approach. Injury 2013; 44: 1793-1798.
7. Laflamme GY, Hebert-Davies J, Rouleau D, Benoit B, Leduc S. Internal fixation of osteopenic acetabular fractures involving the quadrilateral plate. Injury 2011; 42: 1130-1134.
8. Rocca G, Spina M, Mazzi M. Anterior combined endopelvic (ACE) approach for the treatment of acetabular and pelvic ring fractures: a new proposal. Injury 2014; 45: 9-15.
9. Sagi HC, Afsari A, Dziadosz D. The anterior intra-pelvic (modified Rives-Stoppa) approach for fixation of acetabular fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2010; 24: 263-270.
10. Hammad AS, El-Khadrawe TA. Accuracy of reduction and early clinical outcome in acetabular fractures treated by the standard ilio-inguinal versus the Stoppa/iliac approaches. Injury 2015; 4: 320-326.
11. Kacra BK, Arazi M, Cicekcibasi AE, Büyükmumcu M, Demirci S. Modified medial Stoppa approach for acetabular fractures: an anatomic study. J Trauma Inj Infect Crit Care 2011; 71: 1340-1344.
12. Kristan A, Mavčič B, Cimerman M, Iglič A, Tonin M, Slivnik T, et al. Acetabular loading in active abduction. IEEE T Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2007; 15: 252-257.
13. Kaçira BK, Özkaya M, Kiran U, Türkmen F, Arazi M, Demir T. Biomechanical fixation strength comparison of ilioingunial and medial Stoppa approaches on anterior column fractures. J Mech Med Biol 2016; 2016: 16.
14. Yildirim AO, Alemdaroglu KB, Yuksel HY, Öken ÖF, Ucaner A. Finite element analysis of the stability of transverse acetabular fractures in standing and sitting positions by different fixation options. Injury 2015; 46: 29-35.
15. Sztrinkai G, Bodzay T, Pajor S, Erdös P, Vendégh Z, Jonás Z, et al. Further development of our finite element pelvic model to compare fixation methods for pelvic fractures. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 2014; 25: 8-14.
16. Taylor M, Prendergast PJ. Four decades of finite element analysis of orthopaedic devices: where are we now and what are the opportunities? J Biomech 2015; 48: 767-778.
17. Fan Y, Lei J, Zhu F, Li Z, Chen W, Liu X. Biomechanical analysis of the fixation system for T-shaped acetabular fracture. Comput Math Methods Med 2015; 2015: 370631.