Basic Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Orthop. May 18, 2019; 10(5): 219-227
Published online May 18, 2019. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v10.i5.219
Precontoured buttress plate vs reconstruction plate for acetabulum posterior wall fractures: A biomechanical study
Güray Altun, Gürsel Saka, Teyfik Demir, Fatma Kübra Erbay Elibol, Mehmet Orçun Polat
Güray Altun, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Health Sciences Umraniye Training and Research Hospital, Ümraniye, Istanbul 34764, Turkey
Gürsel Saka, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Intercontinental Hisar Hospital, Ümraniye, Istanbul 34768, Turkey
Teyfik Demir, Fatma Kübra Erbay Elibol, Department of Mechanical Engineering, TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Çankaya, Ankara 06560, Turkey
Mehmet Orçun Polat, Department of Industrial Engineering, Kadir Has University, Department of Industrial Engineering, Fatih, Istanbul 34083, Turkey
Author contributions: Altun G and Saka G analyzed the data and prepared the pelvis models prior to laboratory study; Demir T and Elibol FKE performed the biomechanical preparation and tests with the models, as well as the statistical evaluation of the results; Altun G, Polat MO and Saka G wrote the manuscript.
Institutional review board statement: This study was exempt from IRB approval, due to its nature as a biomechanical study.
Institutional animal care and use committee statement: This study was exempt from IACUC approval, due to its nature as a biomechanical study.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to this study or its publication.
Data sharing statement: There are no additional data.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Güray Altun, MD, Doctor, Surgeon, Orthopaedic and Traumatology Surgeon, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Health Sciences Umraniye Training and Research Hospital, Adem Yavuz Str., Ümraniye, Istanbul 34764, Turkey. gurayaltun@hotmail.com
Telephone: +90-505-7456667
Received: January 21, 2019
Peer-review started: January 22, 2019
First decision: April 11, 2019
Revised: April 30, 2019
Accepted: May 14, 2019
Article in press: May 14, 2019
Published online: May 18, 2019
Processing time: 117 Days and 10.4 Hours
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
Research background

The purpose of open reduction and internal fixation of acetabulum posterior wall fractures is to restore anatomical structure and stability of the hip joint, in order to start weight bearing as soon as possible and prevent hip arthrosis; restoration of the anatomy should preserve function of the joint as well.

Research motivation

Although “special shaped precontoured plates” have been developed in recent years for surgical treatment of this region, studies comparing the traditional plates with the newly designed precontoured plates are lacking.

Research objectives

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical properties of precontoured anatomic buttress and conventional curved reconstruction plates (CCRPs) for posterior wall acetabulum fracture treatment, particularly to determine if one provides more stable fixation.

Research methods

Hemipelvis models (experimental; divided at the sagittal plane and passing over the center of gravity) with similar posterior wall acetabular fractures were fixed with a 5-hole CCRP (right pelvis model) or a precontoured anatomic buttress plate (left pelvis model). These fixated hemipelvis samples were subjected to static load testing (constant testing velocity of 2 mm/min, applied until the load reached 2.3 kN or the acetabular fixation failed) and dynamic testing (sinusoidal wave load, with a maximal load of 2.3 kN and a load ratio of 0.1).

Research results

Rigidity of the precontoured anatomic acetabulum buttress plates was significantly higher than that of the CCRPs (P = 0.022).

Research conclusions

The findings of this study support the use of anatomic buttress plates for posterior acetabular wall fractures’ surgical treatment. In this surgical treatment, the CCRP is insufficient for safe stability because of its need for anatomic adaptation, lower screw number allowance, and lack of a buttress effect. The precontoured anatomic acetabulum buttress plate is safer, according to its matching the anatomy of the posterior acetabular region and ability to use more screws. In practice, surgeons usually use two reconstruction plates to achieve stable fixation, doubling the surgical time; the use of a single precontoured anatomic acetabulum buttress plate will lessen the surgical time.

Research perspectives

For posterior acetabular wall fractures, only fixing the fragment may not always be the best solution. Because the pelvic girdle is exposed to substantial force, according to its anatomic location, stable fixation with multiple screws is needed. Future research efforts must be made from the perspective of clinical practice, to provide biomechanical data from real-life experiences. We also caution that, in clinical practice, this type of fracture does not usually occur in isolation, and is generally accompanied by fracture in other parts of the pelvic girdle (i.e., sacroiliac), and for best results each single fracture pattern must be considered.