Which implant is better for the fixation of posterior wall acetabular fractures: A conventional reconstruction plate or a brand-new calcaneal plate?

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorTosyalı H.K.
dc.contributor.authorElibol F.K.E.
dc.contributor.authorHancıoğlu S.
dc.contributor.authorKaçmaz S.E.
dc.contributor.authorÇalışkan Ö.İ.
dc.contributor.authorTolunay T.
dc.contributor.authorDemir T.
dc.contributor.authorOkçu G.
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-22T08:01:19Z
dc.date.available2024-07-22T08:01:19Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.description.abstractBackground: Increased posterior wall acetabular fractures among older adults, require precise treatment to restore stability to the joint, lower the risk of degenerative arthritis, and enhance overall functional recovery. The purpose of this study was to compare the fixation stability and mechanical characteristics of calcaneal buttress plate and conventional reconstruction plate under different loading condition. Methods: Typical acetabular posterior wall fractures were created on twenty synthetic hemipelvis models. They were fixed with calcaneus plate and reconstruction plate. Dynamic and static tests were performed. Displacements of fracture line and stiffness were calculated. Findings: After dynamic loading, calcaneus plate fixation has significantly less displacement than the reconstruction plate on the superior posterior wall. Under static loading condition, the calcaneus plate group has significantly less displacement than the reconstruction plate group on the inferior posterior part of the fracture. The average stiffness values of the calcaneus plate group and the reconstruction plate group were 265.16±53.98 N/mm and 167.48±36.87 N/mm, respectively and a statistically significant difference was found between the two groups. Interpretation: The calcaneal plate group demonstrated better stability along the fracture line after dynamic and static loading conditions. Especially when the fragment was on the acetabulum's superior posterior, inferior posterior, and inferior rim, Calcaneal buttress plates offer biomechanically effective choices. © 2024
dc.identifier.DOI-ID10.1016/j.injury.2024.111413
dc.identifier.issn00201383
dc.identifier.urihttp://akademikarsiv.cbu.edu.tr:4000/handle/123456789/11387
dc.language.isoEnglish
dc.publisherElsevier Ltd
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectCalcaneus
dc.subjectHip Fractures
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectLower Extremity
dc.subjectNeck Injuries
dc.subjectProstheses and Implants
dc.subjectSpinal Fractures
dc.subjectacetabulum
dc.subjectacetabulum fracture
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectbiomechanics
dc.subjectcalcaneus
dc.subjectcontrolled study
dc.subjectfracture fixation
dc.subjectplate fixation
dc.subjectrigidity
dc.subjecttreatment outcome
dc.subjectaged
dc.subjectcalcaneus
dc.subjecthip fracture
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectlower limb
dc.subjectneck injury
dc.subjectspine fracture
dc.subjectsurgery
dc.titleWhich implant is better for the fixation of posterior wall acetabular fractures: A conventional reconstruction plate or a brand-new calcaneal plate?
dc.typeArticle

Files

Collections

Scopus Koleksiyonu