A biomechanical study comparing minimally invasive anterior pelvic ring fixation techniques to external fixation

Lauren M. MacCormick, Frank Chen, Jeffrey A Gilbertson, Sikandar Khan, Lisa K. Schroder, Joan E Bechtold, Peter A Cole

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: INFIX and Pelvic Bridge are two new minimally invasive surgical techniques for unstable pelvic ring injuries, and they have demonstrated early clinical success in small, single-center case-series. The primary objective of this study is to gather evidence speaking to the biomechanical stability of internal bridging methods relative to external fixation, with the expectation of biomechanical equivalence. Methods: Ten human cadaveric pelvic specimens were dissected free of all skin, fat, organs, and musculature and were prepared with a partially unstable pelvic ring injury (OTA/AO 61-B). The specimens were randomized to two groups and were repaired and tested with anterior pelvic external fixation (APEF) and INFIX sequentially, or APEF and Pelvic Bridge sequentially. Testing was performed with each specimen mounted onto a servo-hydraulic testing frame with axial compression applied to the superior base of the sacrum under five axial loading/unloading sinusoidal cycles between 10 N and 1000 N at 0.1 Hz. Relative translational motion and rotation across the osteotomy site was reported as our primary outcome measures. Outcome measures were further analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test to determine differences between non-parametric data sets with significance defined as a p value < 0.05. Results: We found no statistical difference in translation (p = 0.237, 0.228) or rotation (p = 0.278, 0.873) at the fracture site when comparing both new constructs to external fixation. Under the imposed loading protocol, no episodes of implant failure or failure at the bone-implant interface occurred. Discussion: Our study provides the biomechanical foundation necessary to support future clinical trial implementation for pelvic fracture patients. While biomechanical stability of these newer, subcutaneous techniques is equivalent to APEF, the surgeon must take into account their technical abilities and knowledge of pelvic anatomy, patient-specific factors including body habitus, and the potential complications associated with each implant and the ability to avoid them.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)251-255
Number of pages5
JournalInjury
Volume50
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2019

Fingerprint

Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Sacrum
Wounds and Injuries
Weight-Bearing
Nonparametric Statistics
Osteotomy
Anatomy
Fats
Clinical Trials
Skin
Bone-Implant Interface
Datasets
Surgeons

Keywords

  • Anterior pelvic ring fixation
  • INFIX
  • Minimally invasive
  • Pelvic Bridge
  • Subcutaneous

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Journal Article
  • Randomized Controlled Trial

Cite this

MacCormick, L. M., Chen, F., Gilbertson, J. A., Khan, S., Schroder, L. K., Bechtold, J. E., & Cole, P. A. (2019). A biomechanical study comparing minimally invasive anterior pelvic ring fixation techniques to external fixation. Injury, 50(2), 251-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2018.07.011

A biomechanical study comparing minimally invasive anterior pelvic ring fixation techniques to external fixation. / MacCormick, Lauren M.; Chen, Frank; Gilbertson, Jeffrey A; Khan, Sikandar; Schroder, Lisa K.; Bechtold, Joan E; Cole, Peter A.

In: Injury, Vol. 50, No. 2, 01.02.2019, p. 251-255.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

MacCormick, LM, Chen, F, Gilbertson, JA, Khan, S, Schroder, LK, Bechtold, JE & Cole, PA 2019, 'A biomechanical study comparing minimally invasive anterior pelvic ring fixation techniques to external fixation', Injury, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 251-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2018.07.011
MacCormick LM, Chen F, Gilbertson JA, Khan S, Schroder LK, Bechtold JE et al. A biomechanical study comparing minimally invasive anterior pelvic ring fixation techniques to external fixation. Injury. 2019 Feb 1;50(2):251-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2018.07.011
MacCormick, Lauren M. ; Chen, Frank ; Gilbertson, Jeffrey A ; Khan, Sikandar ; Schroder, Lisa K. ; Bechtold, Joan E ; Cole, Peter A. / A biomechanical study comparing minimally invasive anterior pelvic ring fixation techniques to external fixation. In: Injury. 2019 ; Vol. 50, No. 2. pp. 251-255.
@article{7f83587ba54b488d91e96ebaf4f721ec,
title = "A biomechanical study comparing minimally invasive anterior pelvic ring fixation techniques to external fixation",
abstract = "Introduction: INFIX and Pelvic Bridge are two new minimally invasive surgical techniques for unstable pelvic ring injuries, and they have demonstrated early clinical success in small, single-center case-series. The primary objective of this study is to gather evidence speaking to the biomechanical stability of internal bridging methods relative to external fixation, with the expectation of biomechanical equivalence. Methods: Ten human cadaveric pelvic specimens were dissected free of all skin, fat, organs, and musculature and were prepared with a partially unstable pelvic ring injury (OTA/AO 61-B). The specimens were randomized to two groups and were repaired and tested with anterior pelvic external fixation (APEF) and INFIX sequentially, or APEF and Pelvic Bridge sequentially. Testing was performed with each specimen mounted onto a servo-hydraulic testing frame with axial compression applied to the superior base of the sacrum under five axial loading/unloading sinusoidal cycles between 10 N and 1000 N at 0.1 Hz. Relative translational motion and rotation across the osteotomy site was reported as our primary outcome measures. Outcome measures were further analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test to determine differences between non-parametric data sets with significance defined as a p value < 0.05. Results: We found no statistical difference in translation (p = 0.237, 0.228) or rotation (p = 0.278, 0.873) at the fracture site when comparing both new constructs to external fixation. Under the imposed loading protocol, no episodes of implant failure or failure at the bone-implant interface occurred. Discussion: Our study provides the biomechanical foundation necessary to support future clinical trial implementation for pelvic fracture patients. While biomechanical stability of these newer, subcutaneous techniques is equivalent to APEF, the surgeon must take into account their technical abilities and knowledge of pelvic anatomy, patient-specific factors including body habitus, and the potential complications associated with each implant and the ability to avoid them.",
keywords = "Anterior pelvic ring fixation, INFIX, Minimally invasive, Pelvic Bridge, Subcutaneous",
author = "MacCormick, {Lauren M.} and Frank Chen and Gilbertson, {Jeffrey A} and Sikandar Khan and Schroder, {Lisa K.} and Bechtold, {Joan E} and Cole, {Peter A}",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.injury.2018.07.011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "50",
pages = "251--255",
journal = "Injury",
issn = "0020-1383",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A biomechanical study comparing minimally invasive anterior pelvic ring fixation techniques to external fixation

AU - MacCormick, Lauren M.

AU - Chen, Frank

AU - Gilbertson, Jeffrey A

AU - Khan, Sikandar

AU - Schroder, Lisa K.

AU - Bechtold, Joan E

AU - Cole, Peter A

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - Introduction: INFIX and Pelvic Bridge are two new minimally invasive surgical techniques for unstable pelvic ring injuries, and they have demonstrated early clinical success in small, single-center case-series. The primary objective of this study is to gather evidence speaking to the biomechanical stability of internal bridging methods relative to external fixation, with the expectation of biomechanical equivalence. Methods: Ten human cadaveric pelvic specimens were dissected free of all skin, fat, organs, and musculature and were prepared with a partially unstable pelvic ring injury (OTA/AO 61-B). The specimens were randomized to two groups and were repaired and tested with anterior pelvic external fixation (APEF) and INFIX sequentially, or APEF and Pelvic Bridge sequentially. Testing was performed with each specimen mounted onto a servo-hydraulic testing frame with axial compression applied to the superior base of the sacrum under five axial loading/unloading sinusoidal cycles between 10 N and 1000 N at 0.1 Hz. Relative translational motion and rotation across the osteotomy site was reported as our primary outcome measures. Outcome measures were further analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test to determine differences between non-parametric data sets with significance defined as a p value < 0.05. Results: We found no statistical difference in translation (p = 0.237, 0.228) or rotation (p = 0.278, 0.873) at the fracture site when comparing both new constructs to external fixation. Under the imposed loading protocol, no episodes of implant failure or failure at the bone-implant interface occurred. Discussion: Our study provides the biomechanical foundation necessary to support future clinical trial implementation for pelvic fracture patients. While biomechanical stability of these newer, subcutaneous techniques is equivalent to APEF, the surgeon must take into account their technical abilities and knowledge of pelvic anatomy, patient-specific factors including body habitus, and the potential complications associated with each implant and the ability to avoid them.

AB - Introduction: INFIX and Pelvic Bridge are two new minimally invasive surgical techniques for unstable pelvic ring injuries, and they have demonstrated early clinical success in small, single-center case-series. The primary objective of this study is to gather evidence speaking to the biomechanical stability of internal bridging methods relative to external fixation, with the expectation of biomechanical equivalence. Methods: Ten human cadaveric pelvic specimens were dissected free of all skin, fat, organs, and musculature and were prepared with a partially unstable pelvic ring injury (OTA/AO 61-B). The specimens were randomized to two groups and were repaired and tested with anterior pelvic external fixation (APEF) and INFIX sequentially, or APEF and Pelvic Bridge sequentially. Testing was performed with each specimen mounted onto a servo-hydraulic testing frame with axial compression applied to the superior base of the sacrum under five axial loading/unloading sinusoidal cycles between 10 N and 1000 N at 0.1 Hz. Relative translational motion and rotation across the osteotomy site was reported as our primary outcome measures. Outcome measures were further analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test to determine differences between non-parametric data sets with significance defined as a p value < 0.05. Results: We found no statistical difference in translation (p = 0.237, 0.228) or rotation (p = 0.278, 0.873) at the fracture site when comparing both new constructs to external fixation. Under the imposed loading protocol, no episodes of implant failure or failure at the bone-implant interface occurred. Discussion: Our study provides the biomechanical foundation necessary to support future clinical trial implementation for pelvic fracture patients. While biomechanical stability of these newer, subcutaneous techniques is equivalent to APEF, the surgeon must take into account their technical abilities and knowledge of pelvic anatomy, patient-specific factors including body habitus, and the potential complications associated with each implant and the ability to avoid them.

KW - Anterior pelvic ring fixation

KW - INFIX

KW - Minimally invasive

KW - Pelvic Bridge

KW - Subcutaneous

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056692543&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056692543&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.injury.2018.07.011

DO - 10.1016/j.injury.2018.07.011

M3 - Article

VL - 50

SP - 251

EP - 255

JO - Injury

JF - Injury

SN - 0020-1383

IS - 2

ER -