Cargando…
Finite element analysis of posterior acetabular column plate and posterior acetabular wall prostheses in treating posterior acetabular fractures
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the mechanical stability of the posterior acetabular column plate and different posterior acetabular wall prostheses used in treating posterior acetabular fractures with or without comminution. METHODS: The unilateral normal ilium was reconstr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9922446/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36774499 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-03535-9 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the mechanical stability of the posterior acetabular column plate and different posterior acetabular wall prostheses used in treating posterior acetabular fractures with or without comminution. METHODS: The unilateral normal ilium was reconstructed, and a model of posterior acetabular wall fracture was established on this basis. The fracture fragment accounted for approximately 40% of the posterior acetabular wall. The posterior acetabular column plate and different posterior acetabular wall prostheses were also designed. Using static and dynamic analysis methods, we observed and compared the changes in the stress and displacement values of different models at different hip joint flexion angles under external forces. RESULTS: At different hip flexion angles, the stress of each model mainly fluctuated between 37.98 MPa and 1129.00 MPa, and the displacement mainly fluctuated between 0.076 and 6.955 mm. In the dynamic analysis, the nodal stress‒time curves of the models were nonlinear, and the stress changed sharply during the action time. Most of the nodal displacement‒time curves of the models were relatively smooth, with no dramatic changes in displacement during the action time; additionally, most of the curves were relatively consistent in shape. CONCLUSIONS: For simple posterior acetabular wall fractures, we recommend using a posterior acetabular column plate. In the case of comminuted posterior acetabular fractures, we recommend the use of a nonflanked posterior acetabular prosthesis or a biflanked posterior acetabular prosthesis. Regarding the method of acetabular prosthesis design, we propose the concept of “Break up to Make up” as a guide. |
---|