Comparison of Biomechanical Performance of Five Different Treatment Approaches for Fixing Posterior Pelvic Ring Injury.

BACKGROUND

A large number of pelvic injuries are seriously unstable, with mortality rates reaching 19%. Approximately 60% of pelvic injuries are related to the posterior pelvic ring. However, the selection of a fixation method for a posterior pelvic ring injury remains a challenging problem for orthopedic surgeons. The aim of the present study is to investigate the biomechanical performance of five different fixation approaches for posterior pelvic ring injury and thus provide guidance on the choice of treatment approach in a clinical setting.

METHODS

A finite element (FE) model, including the L3-L5 lumbar vertebrae, sacrum, and full pelvis, was created from CT images of a healthy adult. Tile B and Tile C types of pelvic fractures were created in the model. Five different fixation methods for fixing the posterior ring injury (PRI) were simulated: TA1 (conservative treatment), TA2 (S1 screw fixation), TA3 (S1 + S2 screw fixation), TA4 (plate fixation), and TA5 (modified triangular osteosynthesis). Based on the fixation status (fixed or nonfixed) of the anterior ring and the fixation method for PRI, 20 different FE models were created. An upright standing loading scenario was simulated, and the resultant displacements at the sacroiliac joint were compared between different models.

RESULTS

When TA5 was applied, the resultant displacements at the sacroiliac joint were the smallest (1.5 mm, 1.6 mm, 1.6 mm, and 1.7 mm) for all the injury cases. The displacements induced by TA3 and TA2 were similar to those induced by TA5. TA4 led to larger displacements at the sacroiliac joint (2.3 mm, 2.4 mm, 4.8 mm, and 4.9 mm), and TA1 was the worst case (3.1 mm, 3.2 mm, 6.3 mm, and 6.5 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

The best internal fixation method for PRI is the triangular osteosynthesis approach (TA5), followed by S1 + S2 screw fixation (TA3), S1 screw fixation (TA2), and plate fixation (TA4).