The infraacetabular screw versus the antegrade posterior column screw in acetabulum fractures with posterior column involvement: a biomechanical comparison

Standard

The infraacetabular screw versus the antegrade posterior column screw in acetabulum fractures with posterior column involvement: a biomechanical comparison. / Hinz, Nico; Baumeister, Dirk; Dehoust, Julius; Münch, Matthias; Frosch, Karl-Heinz; Augat, Peter; Hartel, Maximilian J.

in: ARCH ORTHOP TRAUM SU, Jahrgang 144, Nr. 6, 06.2024, S. 2573-2582.

Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/ZeitungSCORING: ZeitschriftenaufsatzForschungBegutachtung

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{7dfe6a576a3c4e0f9f3abf1f40aa2842,
title = "The infraacetabular screw versus the antegrade posterior column screw in acetabulum fractures with posterior column involvement: a biomechanical comparison",
abstract = "INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, plate osteosynthesis of the anterior column combined with an antegrade posterior column screw is used for fixation of anterior column plus posterior hemitransverse (ACPHT) acetabulum fractures. Replacing the posterior column screw with an infraacetabular screw could improve the straightforwardness of acetabulum surgery, as it can be inserted using less invasive approaches, such as the AIP/Stoppa approach, which is a well-established standard approach. However, the biomechanical stability of a plate osteosynthesis combined with an infraacetabular screw instead of an antegrade posterior column screw is unknown.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two osteosynthesis constructs were compared in a synthetic hemipelvis model with an ACPHT fracture: Suprapectineal plate + antegrade posterior column screw (APCS group) vs. suprapectineal plate + infraacetabular screw (IAS group). A single-leg stance test protocol with an additional passive muscle force and a cyclic loading of 32,000 cycles with a maximum effective load of 2400 N was applied. Interfragmentary motion and rotation of the three main fracture lines were measured.RESULTS: At the posterior hemitransverse fracture line, interfragmentary motion perpendicular to the fracture line (p < 0.001) and shear motion (p < 0.001) and at the high anterior column fracture line, interfragmentary motion longitudinal to the fracture line (p = 0.017) were significantly higher in the IAS group than in the APCS group. On the other hand, interfragmentary motion perpendicular (p = 0.004), longitudinal (p < 0.001) and horizontal to the fracture line (p = 0.004) and shear motion (p < 0.001) were significantly increased at the low anterior column fracture line in the APCS group compared to the IAS group.CONCLUSIONS: Replacing the antegrade posterior column screw with an infraacetabular screw is not recommendable as it results in an increased interfragmentary motion, especially at the posterior hemitransverse component of an ACPHT fracture.",
author = "Nico Hinz and Dirk Baumeister and Julius Dehoust and Matthias M{\"u}nch and Karl-Heinz Frosch and Peter Augat and Hartel, {Maximilian J}",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2024. The Author(s).",
year = "2024",
month = jun,
doi = "10.1007/s00402-024-05324-3",
language = "English",
volume = "144",
pages = "2573--2582",
journal = "ARCH ORTHOP TRAUM SU",
issn = "0936-8051",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The infraacetabular screw versus the antegrade posterior column screw in acetabulum fractures with posterior column involvement: a biomechanical comparison

AU - Hinz, Nico

AU - Baumeister, Dirk

AU - Dehoust, Julius

AU - Münch, Matthias

AU - Frosch, Karl-Heinz

AU - Augat, Peter

AU - Hartel, Maximilian J

N1 - © 2024. The Author(s).

PY - 2024/6

Y1 - 2024/6

N2 - INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, plate osteosynthesis of the anterior column combined with an antegrade posterior column screw is used for fixation of anterior column plus posterior hemitransverse (ACPHT) acetabulum fractures. Replacing the posterior column screw with an infraacetabular screw could improve the straightforwardness of acetabulum surgery, as it can be inserted using less invasive approaches, such as the AIP/Stoppa approach, which is a well-established standard approach. However, the biomechanical stability of a plate osteosynthesis combined with an infraacetabular screw instead of an antegrade posterior column screw is unknown.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two osteosynthesis constructs were compared in a synthetic hemipelvis model with an ACPHT fracture: Suprapectineal plate + antegrade posterior column screw (APCS group) vs. suprapectineal plate + infraacetabular screw (IAS group). A single-leg stance test protocol with an additional passive muscle force and a cyclic loading of 32,000 cycles with a maximum effective load of 2400 N was applied. Interfragmentary motion and rotation of the three main fracture lines were measured.RESULTS: At the posterior hemitransverse fracture line, interfragmentary motion perpendicular to the fracture line (p < 0.001) and shear motion (p < 0.001) and at the high anterior column fracture line, interfragmentary motion longitudinal to the fracture line (p = 0.017) were significantly higher in the IAS group than in the APCS group. On the other hand, interfragmentary motion perpendicular (p = 0.004), longitudinal (p < 0.001) and horizontal to the fracture line (p = 0.004) and shear motion (p < 0.001) were significantly increased at the low anterior column fracture line in the APCS group compared to the IAS group.CONCLUSIONS: Replacing the antegrade posterior column screw with an infraacetabular screw is not recommendable as it results in an increased interfragmentary motion, especially at the posterior hemitransverse component of an ACPHT fracture.

AB - INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, plate osteosynthesis of the anterior column combined with an antegrade posterior column screw is used for fixation of anterior column plus posterior hemitransverse (ACPHT) acetabulum fractures. Replacing the posterior column screw with an infraacetabular screw could improve the straightforwardness of acetabulum surgery, as it can be inserted using less invasive approaches, such as the AIP/Stoppa approach, which is a well-established standard approach. However, the biomechanical stability of a plate osteosynthesis combined with an infraacetabular screw instead of an antegrade posterior column screw is unknown.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two osteosynthesis constructs were compared in a synthetic hemipelvis model with an ACPHT fracture: Suprapectineal plate + antegrade posterior column screw (APCS group) vs. suprapectineal plate + infraacetabular screw (IAS group). A single-leg stance test protocol with an additional passive muscle force and a cyclic loading of 32,000 cycles with a maximum effective load of 2400 N was applied. Interfragmentary motion and rotation of the three main fracture lines were measured.RESULTS: At the posterior hemitransverse fracture line, interfragmentary motion perpendicular to the fracture line (p < 0.001) and shear motion (p < 0.001) and at the high anterior column fracture line, interfragmentary motion longitudinal to the fracture line (p = 0.017) were significantly higher in the IAS group than in the APCS group. On the other hand, interfragmentary motion perpendicular (p = 0.004), longitudinal (p < 0.001) and horizontal to the fracture line (p = 0.004) and shear motion (p < 0.001) were significantly increased at the low anterior column fracture line in the APCS group compared to the IAS group.CONCLUSIONS: Replacing the antegrade posterior column screw with an infraacetabular screw is not recommendable as it results in an increased interfragmentary motion, especially at the posterior hemitransverse component of an ACPHT fracture.

U2 - 10.1007/s00402-024-05324-3

DO - 10.1007/s00402-024-05324-3

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 38676740

VL - 144

SP - 2573

EP - 2582

JO - ARCH ORTHOP TRAUM SU

JF - ARCH ORTHOP TRAUM SU

SN - 0936-8051

IS - 6

ER -