• Weston Ryan, Nicholas A Alfonso, Todd Baldini, Pam Kumparatana, Michael Reiter, Christopher Joyce, Chen Wei, Yingzhe Zhang, and Cyril Mauffrey.
• University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO.
• J Orthop Trauma. 2019 Sep 1; 33 (9): e325-e330.

ObjectiveTo compare the stability of 3 fixation strategies for a transverse acetabular fracture: a reconstruction plate with anterior and posterior column screws (group A); an infrapectineal precontoured quadrilateral surface buttress (iPQSB) plate alone (group B); and an anterior column lag-screw and iPQSB plate (group C).MethodsA transverse acetabular fracture was created in 18 synthetic hemipelvises. Six were fixed by each of the 3 methods described. Specimens underwent cyclic axial compressive loading to 1700N for 42,000 cycles while anterior and posterior column displacements were measured, followed 4800N for 50 cycles. Displacement and stiffness data were analyzed with analysis of variance and Tukey HSD. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine survival rate. P values < 0.05 were considered significant.ResultsGroup C had significantly less posterior column displacement (0.16 ± 0.06 mm) compared with group B (0.38 ± 0.37 mm, P < 0.0001) and group A (0.38 ± 0.37 mm, P < 0.0001). In addition, group A had significantly more anterior column displacement (0.28 ± 0.11 mm) than group B (0.22 ± 0.14 mm, P = 0.0310) and group C (0.18 ± 0.09 mm, P = 0.0001). Group C was 10.5% stiffer than group A (P = 0.0037). Group B had a 7.27x greater rate of failure than group C (95% confidence interval, 1.6-33.2).Discussion And ConclusionUnder anatomical loading, iPQSB plates with anterior column lag-screw fixation demonstrate increased stability in a synthetic bone transverse acetabular fracture model. Based on our data, we support additional evaluation of early weight-bearing after transverse acetabular fracture fixation in patients with healthy bone when an anterior column screw-iPQSB plate construct is used.

17 keywords...

hide…