Image_4_Biomechanical Effects of a Cross Connector in Sacral Fractures – A Finite Element Analysis.JPEG
Background: Spinopelvic fractures and approaches of operative stabilization have been a source of controversial discussion. Biomechanical data support the benefit of a spinopelvic stabilization and minimally invasive procedures help to reduce the dissatisfying complication rate. The role of a cross connector within spinopelvic devices remains inconclusive. We aimed to analyze the effect of a cross connector in a finite element model (FE model).
Study Design: A FE model of the L1-L5 spine segment with pelvis and a spinopelvic stabilization was reconstructed from patient-specific CT images. The biomechanical relevance of a cross connector in a Denis zone I (AO: 61-B2) sacrum fracture was assessed in the FE model by applying bending and twisting forces with and without a cross connector. Biomechanical outcomes from the numerical model were investigated also considering uncertainties in material properties and levels of osseointegration.
Results: The designed FE model showed comparable values in range-of-motion (ROM) and stresses with reference to the literature. The superiority of the spinopelvic stabilization (L5/Os ilium) ± cross connector compared to a non-operative procedure was confirmed in all analyzed loading conditions by reduced ROM and principal stresses in the disk L5/S1, vertebral body L5 and the fracture area. By considering the combination of all loading cases, the presence of a cross connector reduced the maximum stresses in the fracture area of around 10%. This difference has been statistically validated (p < 0.0001).
Conclusion: The implementation of a spinopelvic stabilization (L5/Os ilium) in sacrum fractures sustained the fracture and led to enhanced biomechanical properties compared to a non-reductive procedure. While the additional cross connector did not alter the resulting ROM in L4/L5 or L5/sacrum, the reduction of the maximum stresses in the fracture area was significant.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1002/jor.23798
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.medengphy.2014.06.014
- https://doi.org//10.1080/10255842.2010.493517
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S0020-1383%2817%2930789-1
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.imu.2020.100290
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s10140-017-1533-3
- https://doi.org//10.1097/01.brs.0000217949.31762.be
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s11657-020-0706-y
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00264-015-3106-y
- https://doi.org//10.1097/00007632-199009000-00011
- https://doi.org//10.1186/1471-2474-9-88
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.07.002
- https://doi.org//10.14444/5072
- https://doi.org//10.3109/02841859809175484
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00590-019-02421-7
- https://doi.org//10.1097/00007632-199702150-00003
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.04.002
- https://doi.org//10.1038/s41598-020-77469-1
- https://doi.org//10.1080/10255842.2018.1478967
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.injury.2018.03.001
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.12.005
- https://doi.org//10.1111/os.12315
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.02.004
- https://doi.org//10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181978ea3
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.spinee.2012.11.014
- https://doi.org//10.5277/ABB-00949-2017-02
- https://doi.org//10.1097/BOT.0000000000000703
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.032
- https://doi.org//10.1097/BRS.0000000000002623
- https://doi.org//10.1097/00005131-199902000-00007
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.05.014
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00586-011-2125-7
- https://doi.org//10.1097/00002517-200104000-00004
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.10.004
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00590-014-1416-1
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
- https://doi.org//10.1016/0021-9290%2892%2990071-8
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.spinee.2015.03.010
- https://doi.org//10.1097/00007632-199610010-00009
- https://doi.org//10.14444/2064
- https://doi.org//10.3171/2017.7.SPINE17499
- https://doi.org//10.14444/6002
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.12.005
- https://doi.org//10.3171/2014.12.SPINE14590
- https://doi.org//10.1097/00007632-199203000-00010
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.otsr.2015.12.002
- https://doi.org//10.1097/BOT.0000000000001308
- https://doi.org//10.1097/CORR.0000000000000861
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.02.019
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.07.026
- https://doi.org//10.1097/00005131-200608000-00001
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.cad.2007.03.005
- https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pone.0201801
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.spinee.2020.07.016
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00586-018-5667-0
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00198-006-0175-1
- https://doi.org//10.1097/00007632-199805150-00010
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00068-015-0530-z
- https://doi.org//10.1097/BOT.0000000000000559
- https://doi.org//10.1097/00007632-198911000-00020
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s11596-016-1680-x
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.medengphy.2008.09.011
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.medengphy.2005.03.007
Usage metrics
Read the peer-reviewed publication
Categories
- Bioprocessing, Bioproduction and Bioproducts
- Industrial Biotechnology Diagnostics (incl. Biosensors)
- Industrial Microbiology (incl. Biofeedstocks)
- Industrial Molecular Engineering of Nucleic Acids and Proteins
- Industrial Biotechnology not elsewhere classified
- Medical Biotechnology Diagnostics (incl. Biosensors)
- Biological Engineering
- Regenerative Medicine (incl. Stem Cells and Tissue Engineering)
- Medical Biotechnology not elsewhere classified
- Agricultural Marine Biotechnology
- Biomaterials
- Biomechanical Engineering
- Biotechnology
- Biomarkers
- Biomedical Engineering not elsewhere classified
- Genetic Engineering
- Synthetic Biology
- Bioremediation
- Medical Molecular Engineering of Nucleic Acids and Proteins
CC BY 4.0