• Hongyang Liu, Ligeng Li, Xiaobo Wu, Hongjia Xu, and Ruijie Zhang.
• Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2015 Sep 1; 29 (9): 1084-7.

ObjectiveTo compare the biomechanical stability of acetabular transverse fracture fixed with single column locking reconstruction plate, locking reconstruction plate combined with lag screw, and double columns lag screws.MethodsAcetabular transverse fractures were established in 20 adult fresh semi-pelvis specimens, and divided into 5 groups randomly (n=4). The anterior columns were fixed with locking reconstruction plates in group A; the posterior columns were fixed with locking reconstruction plates in group B; the anterior columns were fixed with locking reconstruction plates and the posterior columns with lag screws in group C; the anterior columns were fixed with lag screws and the posterior columns with locking reconstruction plates in group D; the double columns were fixed with lag screws in group E. When loading three times weight, the longitudinal displacement of fracture fragment was measured, and the shear rigidity was calculated to compare the stability among groups.ResultsThe longitudinal displacement of groups A and B were significantly greater than that of groups C, D, and E (P<0.05), and the shear rigidity of groups A and B were significantly lower than that of groups C, D, and E (P< 0.05). The longitudinal displacement of group B was significantly greater than that of group A (P< 0.05), but no significant difference was found in the shear rigidity between groups A and B (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the longitudinal displacement and shear rigiditramong groups C, D, and E (P>0.05).ConclusionLocking reconstruction plate combined with lag screw and double columns lag screws have similar stability, they have stronger stability than the single column locking reconstruction plate. The stability of anterior column locking reconstruction plate is better than that of the posterior column locking reconstruction plate.

17 keywords...

hide…