Unilateral Lumbo-Pelvic Fixation for Denis Type I Unilateral Sacral Fracture: A Finite Element Analysis

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
JOR Spine Pub Date : 2025-01-20 DOI:10.1002/jsp2.70022
Jie Yang, Kai O. Böker, Xishan Li, Xiang Zhou, Wolfgang Lehmann
{"title":"Unilateral Lumbo-Pelvic Fixation for Denis Type I Unilateral Sacral Fracture: A Finite Element Analysis","authors":"Jie Yang,&nbsp;Kai O. Böker,&nbsp;Xishan Li,&nbsp;Xiang Zhou,&nbsp;Wolfgang Lehmann","doi":"10.1002/jsp2.70022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Unilateral sacral fractures with posterior ring instability represent a prevalent type of posterior pelvic ring fracture. While lumbo-pelvic fixation is recognized as a highly stable method, the sufficiency of unilateral lumbo-pelvic fixation (ULF) for such fractures remains under debate.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>This study aims to assess the biomechanical stability of ULF compared to traditional bilateral lumbo-pelvic fixation (BLF) and triangular osteosynthesis (TO), incorporating clinical observations, and previous biomechanical data.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We developed a three-dimensional spine-pelvis model to simulate a unilateral sacral fracture with posterior ring instability. The model was used to compare the stability of ULF with BLF and TO, utilizing both newly generated data and ULF models reported in existing literature.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Our findings indicate that BLF and TO provide greater stability than ULF, with BLF emerging as the most stable model. While ULF may be insufficient for immediate postoperative weight-bearing, TO also demonstrated potential risks of instability during rotational and lateral bending movements toward the fracture side.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Despite its application in clinical settings, ULF may not adequately support early postoperative mobility. This study underscores the need for cautious application of ULF and suggests that enhancements such as additional fixation points may be necessary. The results also highlight the importance of tailored postoperative rehabilitation strategies for patients undergoing TO, especially in managing movements that could destabilize the fracture site.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14876,"journal":{"name":"JOR Spine","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11745017/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOR Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsp2.70022","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Unilateral sacral fractures with posterior ring instability represent a prevalent type of posterior pelvic ring fracture. While lumbo-pelvic fixation is recognized as a highly stable method, the sufficiency of unilateral lumbo-pelvic fixation (ULF) for such fractures remains under debate.

Purpose

This study aims to assess the biomechanical stability of ULF compared to traditional bilateral lumbo-pelvic fixation (BLF) and triangular osteosynthesis (TO), incorporating clinical observations, and previous biomechanical data.

Methods

We developed a three-dimensional spine-pelvis model to simulate a unilateral sacral fracture with posterior ring instability. The model was used to compare the stability of ULF with BLF and TO, utilizing both newly generated data and ULF models reported in existing literature.

Results

Our findings indicate that BLF and TO provide greater stability than ULF, with BLF emerging as the most stable model. While ULF may be insufficient for immediate postoperative weight-bearing, TO also demonstrated potential risks of instability during rotational and lateral bending movements toward the fracture side.

Conclusion

Despite its application in clinical settings, ULF may not adequately support early postoperative mobility. This study underscores the need for cautious application of ULF and suggests that enhancements such as additional fixation points may be necessary. The results also highlight the importance of tailored postoperative rehabilitation strategies for patients undergoing TO, especially in managing movements that could destabilize the fracture site.

Abstract Image

单侧腰骨盆固定治疗Denis型单侧骶骨骨折:有限元分析。
背景:单侧骶骨骨折伴后环不稳定是骨盆后环骨折的常见类型。虽然腰盆腔固定被认为是一种高度稳定的方法,但单侧腰盆腔固定(ULF)治疗此类骨折的充分性仍存在争议。目的:本研究旨在结合临床观察和先前的生物力学数据,评估ULF与传统双侧腰骨盆固定(BLF)和三角骨合成(to)相比的生物力学稳定性。方法:建立三维脊柱-骨盆模型,模拟单侧骶骨骨折伴后环不稳。该模型利用新生成的数据和已有文献报道的ULF模型,将ULF与BLF和to的稳定性进行比较。结果:我们的研究结果表明,BLF和TO比ULF具有更大的稳定性,其中BLF是最稳定的模型。虽然ULF可能不足以立即用于术后负重,但在骨折侧的旋转和侧向弯曲运动中,TO也显示出潜在的不稳定风险。结论:尽管它在临床应用,但ULF可能不能充分支持术后早期的活动能力。这项研究强调了谨慎应用ULF的必要性,并建议可能需要增加固定点等增强措施。研究结果还强调了为接受TO手术的患者量身定制的术后康复策略的重要性,特别是在管理可能导致骨折部位不稳定的运动方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JOR Spine
JOR Spine ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
18.90%
发文量
42
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信