Bell A L, Smith R A, Brown T D, Nepola J V
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City 52242.
J Orthop Trauma. 1988;2(2):130-8. doi: 10.1097/00005131-198802010-00008.
We compared the mechanical performance of the Orthofix pelvic external fixator with that of the Pittsburgh triangular frame (PTF) on eight fresh-frozen cadaver pelves with experimentally created Malgaigne (double-vertical) fracture/dislocations. The pelves were quasi-statically loaded in longitudinal compression and loss of reduction (i.e., failure) was defined as 1.5 cm of diastasis at either of the fracture/dislocation sites. The Orthofix frame-pelvis complex (four 6-mm half-pins) was comparable to the PTF-pelvis complex (eight 5-mm half-pins) in terms of load to failure and overall stiffness, but was 4-7 times stiffer at lower load levels. Both frame-and-pin complexes deformed moderately at the pin-bone interface, but, while the PTF also showed moderate displacement between frame components, the Orthofix had almost no frame intercomponent motion.
我们在八具新鲜冷冻的尸体骨盆上，通过实验制造马尔盖涅（双垂直）骨折/脱位，比较了Orthofix骨盆外固定器与匹兹堡三角架（PTF）的力学性能。骨盆在纵向压缩下进行准静态加载，复位丢失（即失效）定义为骨折/脱位部位任一位置出现1.5厘米的分离。Orthofix框架-骨盆复合体（四个6毫米半针）在失效载荷和整体刚度方面与PTF-骨盆复合体（八个5毫米半针）相当，但在较低载荷水平下刚度要高4至7倍。框架和针的复合体在针-骨界面处均有适度变形，不过，虽然PTF在框架部件之间也显示出适度位移，但Orthofix几乎没有框架部件间的运动。
