Abstract
PurposeOperative treatment of unstable posterior wall fractures of acetabulum has been widely recommended. This laboratory study was undertaken to evaluate static fixation strength of three common fixation constructs: interfragmentary screws alone, in combination with conventional reconstruction plate, or locking reconstruction plate.MethodsSix formalin-preserved cadaveric pelvises were used for this investigation. A posterior wall fracture was created along an arc of 40–90 degree about the acetabular rim. Three groups of different fixation constructs (two interfragmentary screws alone; two interfragmentary screws and a conventional reconstruction plate; two interfragmentary screws and a locking reconstruction) were compared. Pelvises were axial loaded with six cycles of 1500 N. Dislocation of superior and inferior fracture site was analysed with a multidirectional ultrasonic measuring system. Results: No statistically significant difference was found at each of the superior and inferior fracture sites between the three types of fixation. In each group, the vector dislocation at superior fracture site was significantly larger than inferior one.ConclusionsAll those three described fixation constructs can provide sufficient stability for posterior acetabular fractures and allow early mobilization under experimental conditions. Higher posterior acetabular fracture line, transecting the weight-bearing surface, may indicate a substantial increase in instability, and need more stable pattern of fixation.
Highlights
Fracture of the posterior wall is the most common acetabular fracture [1,2]
Independent of the fixation construct, the motion pattern in the superior and inferior fracture line was similar in all three groups, as shown for the three translation axes (Fig. 4)
The dislocations of three constructs were approximately Equivalent at the inferior fracture site
Summary
They accounted for nearly 47% of the total acetabular fractures in the study by Letournel and Judet [2] Operative treatment of these fractures with an unstable hip or when a large part of the posterior wall is involved has been widely recommended for anatomical reduction and rigid fixation [1,2,3,4]. The gap or step in articular surface would induce the development of osteoarthritis and degeneration [2,3] Redislocation is another severe complication of failure fixation [3,4,5,6,9]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
