Does Cement Augmentation of the Sacroiliac Screw Lead to Superior Biomechanical Results for Fixation of the Posterior Pelvic Ring? A Biomechanical Study

Background and Objectives: The stability of the pelvic ring mainly depends on the integrity of its posterior part. Percutaneous sacroiliac (SI) screws are widely implanted as standard of care treatment. The main risk factors for their fixation failure are related to vertical shear or transforaminal sacral fractures. The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical performance of fixations using one (Group 1) or two (Group 2) standard SI screws versus one SI screw with bone cement augmentation (Group 3). Materials and Methods: Unstable fractures of the pelvic ring (AO/OTA 61-C1.3, FFP IIc) were simulated in 21 artificial pelvises by means of vertical osteotomies in the ipsilateral anterior and posterior pelvic ring. A supra-acetabular external fixator was applied to address the anterior fracture. All specimens were tested under progressively increasing cyclic loading until failure, with monitoring by means of motion tracking. Fracture site displacement and cycles to failure were evaluated. Results: Fracture displacement after 500 cycles was lowest in Group 3 (0.76 cm [0.30] (median [interquartile range, IQR])) followed by Group 1 (1.42 cm, [0.21]) and Group 2 (1.42 cm [1.66]), with significant differences between Groups 1 and 3, p = 0.04. Fracture displacement after 1000 cycles was significantly lower in Group 3 (1.15 cm [0.37]) compared to both Group 1 (2.19 cm [2.39]) and Group 2 (2.23 cm [3.65]), p ≤ 0.04. Cycles to failure (Group 1: 3930 ± 890 (mean ± standard deviation), Group 2: 3676 ± 348, Group 3: 3764 ± 645) did not differ significantly between the groups, p = 0.79. Conclusions: In our biomechanical setup cement augmentation of one SI screw resulted in significantly less displacement compared to the use of one or two SI screws. However, the number of cycles to failure was not significantly different between the groups. Cement augmentation of one SI screw seems to be a useful treatment option for posterior pelvic ring fixation, especially in osteoporotic bone

Is Anterior Plating Superior to the Bilateral Use of Retrograde Transpubic Screws for Treatment of Straddle Pelvic Ring Fractures? A Biomechanical Investigation

Background: Fractures of the four anterior pubic rami are described as “straddle fractures”. The aim of this study was to compare biomechanical anterior plating (group 1) versus the bilateral use of retrograde transpubic screws (group 2). Methods: A straddle fracture was simulated in 16 artificial pelvises. All specimens were tested under progressively increasing cyclic loading, with monitoring by means of motion tracking. Results: Axial stiffness did not differ significantly between the groups, p = 0.88. Fracture displacement after 1000–4000 cycles was not significantly different between the groups, p ≥ 0.38; however, after 5000 cycles it was significantly less in the retrograde transpubic screw group compared to the anterior plating group, p = 0.04. No significantly different flexural rotations were detected between the groups, p ≥ 0.32. Moreover, no significant differences were detected between the groups with respect to their cycles to failure and failure loads, p = 0.14. Conclusion: The results of this biomechanical study reveal less fracture displacement in the retrograde transpubic screw group after long-term testing with no further significant difference between anterior plating and bilateral use of retrograde transpubic screws. While the open approach using anterior plating allows for better visualization of the fracture site and open reduction, the use of bilateral retrograde transpubic screws, splinting the fracture, presents a minimally invasive and biomechanically stable technique

Biomechanical Comparison of Five Fixation Techniques for Unstable Fragility Fractures of the Pelvic Ring

Background: Incidence of pelvic ring fractures has increased over the past four decades, especially after low-impact trauma—classified as fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP). To date, there is a lack of biomechanical evidence for the superiority of one existing fixation technique over another. An FFP type IIc was simulated in 50 artificial pelvises, assigned to 5 study groups: Sacroiliac (SI) screw, SI screw plus supra-acetabular external fixator, SI screw plus plate, SI screw plus retrograde transpubic screw, or S1/S2 ala–ilium screws. The specimens were tested under progressively increasing cyclic loading. Axial stiffness and cycles to failure were analysed. Displacement at the fracture sites was evaluated, having been continuously captured via motion tracking. Results: Fixation with SI screw plus plate and SI screw plus retrograde transpubic screw led to higher stability than the other tested techniques. The S1/S2 ala–ilium screws were more stable than the SI screw or the SI screw plus external fixator. Conclusions: In cases with displaced fractures, open reduction and plate fixation provides the highest stability, whereas in cases where minimally invasive techniques are applicable, a retrograde transpubic screw or S1/S2 ala–ilium screws can be considered as successful alternative treatment options