The T-pod is as stable as supraacetabular fixation using 1 or 2 Schanz screws in partially unstable pelvic fractures: a biomechanical study

Evaluating the stability of external fixators following pelvic injury: A systematic review of biomechanical testing methods

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aims to identify previously used techniques in biomechanics to assess pelvic instability following pelvic injury, focusing on external fixation constructs.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted to include biomechanical studies and to exclude clinical trials.

RESULTS

Of an initial 4666 studies found, 38 met the inclusion criteria. 84% of the included studies were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The studies analysed 106 postmortem specimens, 154 synthetic bones, and 103 computational models. Most specimens were male (97% synthetic, 70% postmortem specimens). Both the type of injury and the classification system employed varied across studies. About 82% of the injuries assessed were of type C. Two different fixators were tested for FFPII and type A injury, five for type B injury, and fifteen for type C injury. Large variability was observed for external fixation constructs concerning device type and configuration, pin size, and geometry. Biomechanical studies deployed various methods to assess injury displacement, deformation, stiffness, and motion. Thereby, loading protocols differed and inconsistent definitions of failure were determined. Measurement techniques applied in biomechanical test setups included strain gauges, force transducers, and motion tracking techniques.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

An ideal fixation method should be safe, stable, non-obstructive, and have low complication rates. Although biomechanical testing should ensure that the load applied during testing is representative of a physiological load, a high degree of variability was found in the current literature in both the loading and measurement equipment. The lack of a standardised test design for fixation constructs in pelvic injuries across the studies challenges comparisons between them. When interpreting the results of biomechanical studies, it seems crucial to consider the limitations in cross-study comparability, with implications on their applicability to the clinical setting.

Application of Pelvic Circumferential Compression Devices in Pelvic Ring Fractures-Are Guidelines Followed in Daily Practice?

Early administration of a pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD) is recommended for suspected pelvic trauma. This study was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of PCCD in patients with pelvic fractures assigned to the resuscitation room (RR) of a Level I trauma center. Furthermore, correct application of the PCCD as well as associated injuries with potential clinical sequelae were assessed. All patients with pelvic fractures assigned to the RR of a level one trauma center between 2016 and 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. Presence and position of the PCCD on the initial trauma scan were assessed and rated. Associated injuries with potential adverse effects on clinical outcome were analysed. Seventy-seven patients were included, of which 26 (34%) had a PCCD in place. Eighteen (23%) patients had an unstable fracture pattern of whom ten (56%) had received a PCCD. The PCCD was correctly placed in four (15%) cases, acceptable in 12 (46%) and incorrectly in ten (39%). Of all patients with pelvic fractures (n = 77, 100%) treated in the RR, only one third (n = 26, 34%) had a PCCD. In addition, 39% of PCCDs were positioned incorrectly. Of the patients with unstable pelvic fractures (n = 18, 100%), more than half either did not receive any PCCD (n = 8, 44%) or had one which was inadequately positioned (n = 2, 11 %). These results underline that preclinical and clinical education programs on PCCD indication and application should be critically reassessed.