Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2020
Comparison of two reinforcement rings for primary total hip arthroplasty addressing displaced acetabular fractures: a biomechanical analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Becker Johannes, Winkler M, von Rüden C, Bliven E, Augat P, Resch H
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Aim of this study was to biomechanically compare two different acetabular cup fixation constructs in terms of fracture fixation for displaced acetabular fractures involving the anterior column with hemitransverse fracture under partial and full weight-bearing conditions.
METHODS: Two different reinforcement rings designed as cages for primary THA were biomechanically tested in terms of managing a complex acetabular fracture. Single-leg stance cyclic loading was performed to assess fracture gap movement and fragment rotation. Twelve hemi pelvis Sawbones were divided into two groups: primary THA with acetabulum roof reinforcement plate (ARRP) (n = 6) and primary THA with Burch-Schneider reinforcement cage (BSRC) (n = 6).
RESULTS: During loading under partial weight-bearing (250 N) fracture gap movement tended to be larger in the BSRC group as compared to the ARRP group. Under full weight-bearing conditions, the ARRP showed 60% significantly less motion (p = 0.035) of the os ilium to os ischii gap compared to BSRC. Fracture gap movements between the os ilium and spina iliaca fragments were significantly reduced by 76% (p = 0.048) for ARRP in contrast to BSRC. The ARRP group also demonstrated significantly less movement in the fracture gaps os ischii to quadrilateral plate (62% reduction, p = 0.009) and quadrilateral plate to spina iliaca (87% reduction, p < 0.001). Significantly less rotational movement of the quadrilateral plate to the os ilium was exhibited by the ARRP group (p = 0.015).
CONCLUSIONS: The presented acetabulum roof-reinforcement plate (ARRP) provides stable conditions at the acetabular component with adequate stabilization of a displaced acetabular fracture.
METHODS: Two different reinforcement rings designed as cages for primary THA were biomechanically tested in terms of managing a complex acetabular fracture. Single-leg stance cyclic loading was performed to assess fracture gap movement and fragment rotation. Twelve hemi pelvis Sawbones were divided into two groups: primary THA with acetabulum roof reinforcement plate (ARRP) (n = 6) and primary THA with Burch-Schneider reinforcement cage (BSRC) (n = 6).
RESULTS: During loading under partial weight-bearing (250 N) fracture gap movement tended to be larger in the BSRC group as compared to the ARRP group. Under full weight-bearing conditions, the ARRP showed 60% significantly less motion (p = 0.035) of the os ilium to os ischii gap compared to BSRC. Fracture gap movements between the os ilium and spina iliaca fragments were significantly reduced by 76% (p = 0.048) for ARRP in contrast to BSRC. The ARRP group also demonstrated significantly less movement in the fracture gaps os ischii to quadrilateral plate (62% reduction, p = 0.009) and quadrilateral plate to spina iliaca (87% reduction, p < 0.001). Significantly less rotational movement of the quadrilateral plate to the os ilium was exhibited by the ARRP group (p = 0.015).
CONCLUSIONS: The presented acetabulum roof-reinforcement plate (ARRP) provides stable conditions at the acetabular component with adequate stabilization of a displaced acetabular fracture.