• Oğuzhan Tanoğlu, Kadir Bahadır Alemdaroğlu, Serkan İltar, Ahmet Özmeriç, Teyfik Demir, and Fatma Kübra Erbay.
• Erzincan University Mengücek Gazi Training and Research Hospital, Orthopaedics and Traumatology Department, Turkey. Electronic address: drtanoglu@gmail.com.
• Injury. 2018 Aug 1; 49 (8): 1513-1519.

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to biomechanically compare three different fixation methods for the fixation of anterior column posterior hemitransverse type acetabular fracture (ACPHT).MethodsACPHT fracture models were created on twenty-four foam cortical shell artificial hemipelvis models. Three fixation methods were assessed - Group 1: posterior column lag screws over a suprapectineal plate; Group 2: Posterior column lag screws over a suprapectineal plate and an infrapectineal plate; Group 3: A suprapectineal plate and a vertical infrapectineal plate. Stiffness and displacement amounts of fixation methods under dynamic and static axial loading conditions were measured.ResultsIn the dynamic and static tests, Group 3 showed the less stable fixation compared to Group 2. There was no statistically significant difference between the stiffness values of the fixation groups. In the static tests, there was no statistically significant difference between Group 1 and 2, although less displacements were obtained in Group 2.ConclusionsA combination of posterior lag screws over a suprapectineal plate and an infrapectineal plate supporting the pelvic brim along both sides of the linea terminalis resulted in a better fixation construct than a suprapectineal plate accompanying with a vertical infrapectineal plate provide better stability with less fracture displacement.Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

29 keywords...

hide…