• Lei Wang, Xiaobo Wu, Wei Qi, Yongbin Wang, Quanjie He, Fengsong Xu, and Hongyang Liu.
• Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2015 Oct 1; 29 (10): 1235-9.

ObjectiveTo compare the biomechanical difference of 4 kinds of internal fixations for acetabular fracture in quadrilateral area.MethodsThe transverse fracture models were created in 16 hemipelves specimens from 8 adult males, and were randomly divided into 4 groups according to different internal fixation methods (n = 4): infrapectineal buttress reconstruction plate (group A), infrapectineal buttress locking reconstruction plate (group B), reconstruction plate combined with trans-plate quadrilateral screws (group C), and anterior reconstruction plate-lag screw (group D). Then the horizontal displacement, longitudinal displacement of fractures, and axial stiffness were measured and counted to compare the stability after continuous vertical loading.ResultsUnder the same loading, the horizontal and longitudinal displacements of groups A, B, C, and D were decreased gradually; when the loading reached 1 800 N, the longitudinal displacement of group A was more than 3.00 mm, indicating the failure criterion, while the axial stiffness increased gradually. Under 200 N loading, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in horizontal displacement, longitudinal displacement, and axial stiffness among 4 groups. When the loading reached 600-1 800 N, significant differences were found in horizontal displacement, longitudinal displacement, and axial stiffness among 4 groups (P < 0.05) except the horizontal displacement between groups C and D (P > 0.05).ConclusionFor acetabular fracture in the quadrilateral area, anterior reconstruction plate-lag screw for internal fixation has highest stability, followed by reconstruction plate combined with trans-plate quadrilateral screws, and they are better than infrapectineal buttress reconstruction plate and infrapectineal buttress locking reconstruction plate.

15 keywords...

hide…