中国修复重建外科杂志

中国修复重建外科杂志

不同内固定方式治疗髋臼顶压缩骨折后髋臼负重区接触特性的研究

查看全文

目的 建立髋臼顶压缩骨折模型,采用压敏片技术测量并探讨 3 种不同内固定方式固定后髋臼负重区接触特性。 方法 将 16 具新鲜成人半骨盆标本随机均分为 4 组,每组 4 具。D 组为完整髋臼对照组;其余 3 组制备髋臼顶压缩骨折模型后,A 组采用重建接骨板固定方法、B 组采用顺行排钉螺钉固定方法、C 组采用逆行排钉螺钉固定方法固定骨折。将压敏片贴于股骨头上,于倒置的单足站立位行轴向加载压缩试验,分别测量各组髋臼负重区的负重区面积、平均应力及峰值应力。 结果 载荷为 500 N 时,D 组髋臼负重区面积显著高于其余各组,平均应力和峰值应力显著低于其余各组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。B、C 组髋臼负重区面积显著高于 A 组,平均应力及峰值应力显著低于 A 组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);B、C 组间比较上述指标差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。 结论 对于髋臼顶压缩骨折,即使行解剖复位并坚强内固定,髋臼负重区接触特性也不能恢复至正常水平;顺行及逆行排钉螺钉固定与重建接骨板固定相比,能够增加髋臼负重区面积,降低平均应力及峰值应力,可降低创伤性关节炎的发生率。

Objective To establish the model of compression fracture of acetabular dome, and to measure the contact characteristics of acetabular bearing area of acetabulum after 3 kinds of internal fixation. Methods Sixteen fresh adult half pelvis specimens were randomly divided into 4 groups, 4 specimens each group. Group D was the complete acetabulum (control group), and the remaining 3 groups were prepared acetabular dome compression fracture model. The fractures were fixed with reconstruction plate in group A, antegrade raft screws in group B, and retrograde raft screws in group C. The pressure sensitive films were attached to the femoral head, and the axial compression test was carried out on the inverted single leg standing position. The weight bearing area, average stress, and peak stress were measured in each group. Results Under the loading of 500 N, the acetabular weight bearing area in group D was significantly higher than in other 3 groups (P<0.05), and the average stress and peak stress were significantly lower than in other 3 groups (P<0.05). The acetabular weight-bearing area in group B and group C were significantly higher than in group A, and the average stress and peak stress were significantly lower than in group A (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the above indexes between group B and group C (P>0.05). Conclusion For the compression fracture of the acetabular dome, the contact characteristics of the weight-bearing area can not restore to the normal level, even if the anatomical reduction and rigid internal fixation were performed; compared with the reconstruction plate fixation, antegrade and retrograde raft screws fixations can increase the weight-bearing area, reduce the average stress and peak stress, and reduce the incidence of traumatic arthritis.

关键词: 髋臼顶; 压缩骨折; 内固定; 接触特性

Key words: Acetabular dome; compression fracture; internal fixation; contact characteristics

登录后 ,请手动点击刷新查看全文内容。 没有账号,
登录后 ,请手动点击刷新查看图表内容。 没有账号,
1. Berkebile RD, Fischer DL, Albrecht LF. Thegull-wingsign. Value of the lateral view of the pelvis in fracture-dislocation of the acetabular rim and posterior dislocation of the femoral head. Radiology, 1965, 84(2): 937-939.
2. Anglen JO, Burd TA, Hendricks KJ, et al. The " Gull Sign”: a harbinger of failure for internal fixation of geriatric acetabular fractures. J OrthopTrauma, 2003, 17(9): 625-634.
3. Letournel E. Acetabulum fractures: classification and management. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1980, (151): 81-106.
4. Matta JM. Operative treatment of acetabular fractures through the ilioinguinal approach: a 10-year perspective. J OrthopTrauma, 2006, 20(1 Suppl): S20-29.
5. 毛宾尧. 人工髋关节外科学. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2010: 121.
6. Zhuang Y, Lei JL, Wei X, et al. Surgical treatment of acetabulum top compression fracture with sea gull sign. Orthop Surg, 2015, 7(2): 146-154.
7. Knight RA, Smith H. Central fractures of the acetabulum. J BoneJoint Surg (Am), 1958, 40-A(1): 1-16.
8. Olson SA, Schemitsch G, Morwood M, et al. Hot Topics in Biomechanics: Hip Fracture Fixation. J OrthopTrauma, 2015, 29 Suppl 12: S1-5.
9. 陈国富, 朱忠, 梁军波, 等. 开窗法复位植骨内固定治疗髋臼前柱骨折合并臼顶区关节面压缩塌陷的临床研究. 中国骨伤, 2011, 24(2): 112-115.
10. Laflamme GY, Hebert-Davies J. Direct reduction technique for superomedial dome impaction in geriatric acetabular fractures. J Orthop Trauma, 2013, 28(2): e39-43.
11. Day WH, Swanson SA, Freeman MA. Contact pressures in the loaded human cadaver hip. J BoneJoint Surg, 1975, 57(3): 302-313.
12. Olson SA, Marsh JL, Anderson DD, et al. Designing a biomechanics investigation: choosing the right model. J Orthop Trauma, 2012, 26(12): 672-677.
13. Li YL, Tang YY. Displaced acetabular fractures in the elderly: Results after open reduction and internal fixation. Injury, 2014, 45(12): 1908-1913.
14. Tosounidis TH, Gudipati S, Panteli M, et al. The use of buttress plates in the management of acetabular fractures with quadrilateral plate involvement: is it still a valid option? Int Orthop, 2015, 39(11): 2219-2226.
15. Butterwick D, Papp S, Gofton W, et al. Acetabular fractures in the elderly: evaluation and management. J Bone Joint Surg (Am), 2015, 97(9): 758-768.
16. de Paiva Luciano A, Filho NF. Stress fracture in acetabular roof due to motocross: case report. Rev Bras Ortop, 2016, 51(3): 374-377.
17. 张继宗. 法医人类学. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2009: 380-388.
18. Domazet N, Starović D, Nedeljković R. Biomechanical significance of the acetabular roof and its reaction to mechanical injury. Srp Arh Celok Lek, 1999, 127(11-12): 359-364.
19. Olson SA, Furman BD, Kraus VB, et al. Therapeutic opportunities to prevent post‐traumatic arthritis: Lessons from the natural history of arthritis after articular fracture. J Orthop Res, 2015, 33(9): 1266-1277.
20. Yildirim AO, Alemdaroglu KB, Yuksel HY, et al. Finite element analysis of the stability of transverse acetabular fractures in standing and sitting positions by different fixation options. Injury, 2015, 46(1): S29-35.