Comparison of reconstruction plate screw fixation and percutaneous cannulated screw fixation in treatment of Tile B1 type pubic symphysis diastasis: a finite element analysis and 10-year clinical experience

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Dong-Sheng Zhou¹  Xiao-Shan Guo²  Jian-Jun Hong²  Ke-He Yu¹ 

[1] Department of Traumatic Orthopedics, Shandong Provincial Hospital, Shandong University, No. 324 Jin Wu Wei Seventh Road, Jinan 250021, Shandong, China;Department of Orthopedics, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, 109# XueYuan Western Road, Wenzhou 325000, Zhejiang, China

关键词: Comparative study;    Finite element analysis;    Reconstruction plate;    Cannulated screw;    Pubic symphysis diastasis;   

Others  :  1227804
DOI  :  10.1186/s13018-015-0272-y

 received in 2015-05-12, accepted in 2015-08-09,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Objective

The objective of this study is to compare the biomechanical properties and clinical outcomes of Tile B1 type pubic symphysis diastasis (PSD) treated by percutaneous cannulated screw fixation (PCSF) and reconstruction plate screw fixation (RPSF).

Materials and Methods

Finite element analysis (FEA) was used to compare the biomechanical properties between PCSF and RPSF. CT scan data of one PSD patient were used for three-dimensional reconstructions. After a validated pelvic finite element model was established, both PCSF and RPSF were simulated, and a vertical downward load of 600 N was loaded. The distance of pubic symphysis and stress were tested. Then, 51 Tile type B1 PSD patients (24 in the PCSF group; 27 in the RPSF group) were reviewed. Intra-operative blood loss, operative time, and the length of the skin scar were recorded. The distance of pubic symphysis was measured, and complications of infection, implant failure, and revision surgery were recorded. The Majeed scoring system was also evaluated.

Results

The maximum displacement of the pubic symphysis was 0.408 and 0.643 mm in the RPSF and PCSF models, respectively. The maximum stress of the plate in RPSF was 1846 MPa and that of the cannulated screw in PCSF was 30.92 MPa. All 51 patients received follow-up at least 18 months post-surgery (range 18–54 months). Intra-operative blood loss, operative time, and the length of the skin scar in the PCSF group were significantly different than those in the RPSF group. No significant differences were found in wound infection, implant failure, rate of revision surgery, distance of pubic symphysis, and Majeed score.

Conclusion

PCSF can provide comparable biomechanical properties to RPSF in the treatment of Tile B1 type PSD. Meanwhile, PCSF and RPSF have similar clinical and radiographic outcomes. Furthermore, PCSF also has the advantages of being minimally invasive, has less blood loss, and has shorter operative time and skin scar.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Yu et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Ragnarsson B, Jacobsson B. Epidemiology of pelvic fractures in a Swedish county. Acta Orthop Scand. 1992; 63(3):297-300.
• [2]Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon DH, Wong JB, King A, Tosteson A. Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J Bone Miner Res. 2007; 22(3):465-75.
• [3]Inaba K, Sharkey PW, Stephen DJ, Redelmeier DA, Brenneman FD. The increasing incidence of severe pelvic injury in motor vehicle collisions. Injury. 2004; 35(8):759-65.
• [4]Pohlemann T, Bosch U, Gansslen A, Tscherne H. The Hannover experience in management of pelvic fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994; 305:69-80.
• [5]Putnis SE, Pearce R, Wali UJ, Bircher MD, Rickman MS. Open reduction and internal fixation of a traumatic diastasis of the pubic symphysis: one-year radiological and functional outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011; 93(1):78-84.
• [6]Lange RH, Hansen ST. Pelvic ring disruptions with symphysis pubis diastasis. Indications, technique, and limitations of anterior internal fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985; 201:130-7.
• [7]Giannoudis PV, Chalidis BE, Roberts CS. Internal fixation of traumatic diastasis of pubic symphysis: is plate removal essential? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2008; 128(3):325-31.
• [8]Sagi HC, Papp S. Comparative radiographic and clinical outcome of two-hole and multi-hole symphyseal plating. J Orthop Trauma. 2008; 22(6):373-8.
• [9]Farouk O, Kamal A, Badran M, El-Adly W, El-Gafary K. Minimal invasive para-rectus approach for limited open reduction and percutaneous fixation of displaced acetabular fractures. Injury. 2014; 45(6):995-9.
• [10]Sharma A, Jain PK, Shaw CJ, Sedman PC. Successful laparoscopic repair of a traumatic pubic symphysis hernia. Surg Endosc. 2004; 18(2):345-9.
• [11]Routt ML, Nork SE, Mills WJ. Percutaneous fixation of pelvic ring disruptions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000; 375:15-29.
• [12]Chen L, Zhang G, Song D, Guo X, Yuan W. A comparison of percutaneous reduction and screw fixation versus open reduction and plate fixation of traumatic symphysis pubis diastasis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012; 132(2):265-70.
• [13]Mu WD, Wang H, Zhou DS, Yu LZ, Jia TH, Li LX. Computer navigated percutaneous screw fixation for traumatic pubic symphysis diastasis of unstable pelvic ring injuries. Chin Med J (Engl). 2009; 122(14):1699-703.
• [14]Tile M. Pelvic ring fractures: should they be fixed? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988; 70(1):1-12.
• [15]Zhang L, Yang G, Wu L, Yu B. The biomechanical effects of osteoporosis vertebral augmentation with cancellous bone granules or bone cement on treated and adjacent non-treated vertebral bodies: a finite element evaluation. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2010; 25(2):166-72.
• [16]Vleeming A, Volkers AC, Snijders CJ, Stoeckart R. Relation between form and function in the sacroiliac joint. Part II: biomechanical aspects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990; 15(2):133-6.
• [17]Dalstra M, Huiskes R, Odgaard A, van Erning L. Mechanical and textural properties of pelvic trabecular bone. J Biomech. 1993; 26(4–5):523-35.
• [18]Zuo Z. Three-dimensional finite element analysis and biomechanics of sacroiliac complex, Medical Doctorship Thesis. Shandong University, Jinan, China; 2006.
• [19]Dalstra M, Huiskes R, van Erning L. Development and validation of a three-dimensional finite element model of the pelvic bone. J Biomech Eng. 1995; 117(3):272-8.
• [20]Mechlenburg I, Nyengaard JR, Gelineck J, Soballe K. Cartilage thickness in the hip joint measured by MRI and stereology—a methodological study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007; 15(4):366-71.
• [21]Zhang L, Peng Y, Du C, Tang P. Biomechanical study of four kinds of percutaneous screw fixation in two types of unilateral sacroiliac joint dislocation: a finite element analysis. Injury. 2014; 45(12):2055-9.
• [22]Simonian PT, Routt ML, Harrington RM, Tencer AF. Box plate fixation of the symphysis pubis: biomechanical evaluation of a new technique. J Orthop Trauma. 1994; 8(6):483-9.
• [23]Varga E, Hearn T, Powell J, Tile M. Effects of method of internal fixation of symphyseal disruptions on stability of the pelvic ring. Injury. 1995; 26(2):75-80.
• [24]Cano-Luis P, Giraldez-Sanchez MA, Martinez-Reina J, Serrano-Escalante FJ, Galleguillos-Rioboo C, Lazaro-Gonzalvez A et al.. Biomechanical analysis of a new minimally invasive system for osteosynthesis of pubis symphysis disruption. Injury. 2012; 43 Suppl 2:S20-7.
• [25]Wu AM, Wang XY, Zhao HZ, Lin SL, Xu HZ, Chi YL. An imaging study of the compressed area, bony fragment area, and the total fracture-involved area in thoracolumbar burst fractures. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014; 27(4):207-11.
• [26]Tian NF, Xu HZ, Wang XY, Chen QJ, Zheng LC. Morphometric comparisons between the pedicle and the pedicle rib unit in the immature Chinese thoracic spine: a computed tomographic assessment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(16):1514-9.
• [27]Majeed SA. Grading the outcome of pelvic fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989; 71(2):304-6.
• [28]Fitzgerald CA, Morse BC, Dente CJ. Pelvic ring fractures: has mortality improved following the implementation of damage control resuscitation? Am J Surg. 2014; 208(6):1083-90.
• [29]Hauschild O, Strohm PC, Culemann U, Pohlemann T, Suedkamp NP, Koestler W et al.. Mortality in patients with pelvic fractures: results from the German pelvic injury register. J Trauma. 2008; 64(2):449-55.
• [30]Pohlemann T, Tscherne H, Baumgartel F, Egbers HJ, Euler E, Maurer F et al.. Pelvic fractures: epidemiology, therapy and long-term outcome. Overview of the multicenter study of the Pelvis Study Group. Unfallchirurg. 1996; 99(3):160-7.
• [31]Young JW, Burgess AR, Brumback RJ, Poka A. Pelvic fractures: value of plain radiography in early assessment and management. Radiology. 1986; 160(2):445-51.
• [32]Webb LX, Bosse MJ, Mayo KA, Lange RH, Miller ME, Swiontkowski MF. Results in patients with craniocerebral trauma and an operatively managed acetabular fracture. J Orthop Trauma. 1990; 4(4):376-82.
• [33]Taller S, Lukas R, Sram J. Single cannulated screws for stabilisation of pelvic ring and acetabular fractures. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2011; 78(6):568-77.
• [34]Anderson AE, Peters CL, Tuttle BD, Weiss JA. Subject-specific finite element model of the pelvis: development, validation and sensitivity studies. J Biomech Eng. 2005; 127(3):364-73.
• [35]Phillips AT, Pankaj P, Howie CR, Usmani AS, Simpson AH. Finite element modelling of the pelvis: inclusion of muscular and ligamentous boundary conditions. Med Eng Phys. 2007; 29(7):739-48.
• [36]Virkus WV, Goldberg SH, Lorenz EP. A comparison of compressive force generation by plating and intramedullary nailing techniques in a transverse diaphyseal humerus fracture model. J Trauma. 2008; 65(1):103-8.
• [37]Rommens PM. Is there a role for percutaneous pelvic and acetabular reconstruction? Injury. 2007; 38(4):463-77.
• [38]Mastrangelo G, Fedeli U, Fadda E, Giovanazzi A, Scoizzato L, Saia B. Increased cancer risk among surgeons in an orthopaedic hospital. Occup Med (Lond). 2005; 55(6):498-500.
• [39]Singer G. Occupational radiation exposure to the surgeon. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005; 13(1):69-76.