Bilateral Iliosacral and Transsacral Screws Are Biomechanically Favorable and Reduce the Risk for Fracture Progression in Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis-A Finite Element Analysis.
Moritz F Lodde, Matthias Klimek, Elmar Herbst, Christian Peez, Oliver Riesenbeck, Michael J Raschke, Steffen Roßlenbroich
{"title":"Bilateral Iliosacral and Transsacral Screws Are Biomechanically Favorable and Reduce the Risk for Fracture Progression in Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis-A Finite Element Analysis.","authors":"Moritz F Lodde, Matthias Klimek, Elmar Herbst, Christian Peez, Oliver Riesenbeck, Michael J Raschke, Steffen Roßlenbroich","doi":"10.3390/bioengineering12010027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>(1) Background: The incidence of fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) has increased significantly over the past decades. Unilateral non-displaced fractures, defined as FFP II, are the most common type of fracture. When conservative treatment fails, surgical treatment is indicated. We hypothesize that the use of bilateral SI screws (BSIs) or a transsacral screw (TSI) is superior compared to a unilateral screw (USI) because of a significant reduction in the risk of adjacent fractures and a reduction in fracture progression. (2) Methods: A finite element model of a female pelvic ring was constructed. The ligaments were simulated as tension springs. The load was applied through the sacrum with the pelvis fixed to both acetabula. An FFP IIc was simulated and fixed with either a USI or BSI or TSI. The models were analyzed for a quantitative statement of stress and fracture dislocation. (3) Results: The BSI and TSI resulted in less dislocation compared to the USI. The stress distribution on both sides of the sacrum was favorable in the BSI and TSI groups. The BSI resulted in a higher rotational stability compared to the TSI. (4) Conclusions: The use of either a BSI or TSI for fixation of unilateral FFP is biomechanically favorable compared to the use of a USI. In addition, the use of a BSI or TSI reduces the stress on the contralateral uninjured side of the sacrum. This may reduce the risk of an adjacent fracture or fracture progression.</p>","PeriodicalId":8874,"journal":{"name":"Bioengineering","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11762612/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioengineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12010027","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
(1) Background: The incidence of fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) has increased significantly over the past decades. Unilateral non-displaced fractures, defined as FFP II, are the most common type of fracture. When conservative treatment fails, surgical treatment is indicated. We hypothesize that the use of bilateral SI screws (BSIs) or a transsacral screw (TSI) is superior compared to a unilateral screw (USI) because of a significant reduction in the risk of adjacent fractures and a reduction in fracture progression. (2) Methods: A finite element model of a female pelvic ring was constructed. The ligaments were simulated as tension springs. The load was applied through the sacrum with the pelvis fixed to both acetabula. An FFP IIc was simulated and fixed with either a USI or BSI or TSI. The models were analyzed for a quantitative statement of stress and fracture dislocation. (3) Results: The BSI and TSI resulted in less dislocation compared to the USI. The stress distribution on both sides of the sacrum was favorable in the BSI and TSI groups. The BSI resulted in a higher rotational stability compared to the TSI. (4) Conclusions: The use of either a BSI or TSI for fixation of unilateral FFP is biomechanically favorable compared to the use of a USI. In addition, the use of a BSI or TSI reduces the stress on the contralateral uninjured side of the sacrum. This may reduce the risk of an adjacent fracture or fracture progression.
期刊介绍:
Aims
Bioengineering (ISSN 2306-5354) provides an advanced forum for the science and technology of bioengineering. It publishes original research papers, comprehensive reviews, communications and case reports. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. All aspects of bioengineering are welcomed from theoretical concepts to education and applications. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. There are, in addition, four key features of this Journal:
● We are introducing a new concept in scientific and technical publications “The Translational Case Report in Bioengineering”. It is a descriptive explanatory analysis of a transformative or translational event. Understanding that the goal of bioengineering scholarship is to advance towards a transformative or clinical solution to an identified transformative/clinical need, the translational case report is used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles that may guide other similar transformative/translational undertakings.
● Manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas will be particularly welcomed.
● Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material.
● We also accept manuscripts communicating to a broader audience with regard to research projects financed with public funds.
Scope
● Bionics and biological cybernetics: implantology; bio–abio interfaces
● Bioelectronics: wearable electronics; implantable electronics; “more than Moore” electronics; bioelectronics devices
● Bioprocess and biosystems engineering and applications: bioprocess design; biocatalysis; bioseparation and bioreactors; bioinformatics; bioenergy; etc.
● Biomolecular, cellular and tissue engineering and applications: tissue engineering; chromosome engineering; embryo engineering; cellular, molecular and synthetic biology; metabolic engineering; bio-nanotechnology; micro/nano technologies; genetic engineering; transgenic technology
● Biomedical engineering and applications: biomechatronics; biomedical electronics; biomechanics; biomaterials; biomimetics; biomedical diagnostics; biomedical therapy; biomedical devices; sensors and circuits; biomedical imaging and medical information systems; implants and regenerative medicine; neurotechnology; clinical engineering; rehabilitation engineering
● Biochemical engineering and applications: metabolic pathway engineering; modeling and simulation
● Translational bioengineering