In order to address acetabular defects, porous metal revision acetabular components and augments have been developed, which require fixation to each other. The fixation technique that results in the smallest relative movement between the components, as well as its influence on the primary stability with the host bone, have not previously been determined. A total of 18 composite hemipelvises with a Paprosky IIB defect were implanted using a porous titanium 56 mm multihole acetabular component and 1 cm augment. Each acetabular component and augment was affixed to the bone using two screws, while the method of fixation between the acetabular component and augment varied for the three groups of six hemipelvises: group S, screw fixation only; group SC, screw plus cement fixation; group C, cement fixation only. The implanted hemipelvises were cyclically loaded to three different loading maxima (0.5 kN, 0.9 kN, and 1.8 kN).Objectives
Methods
Lumbar fusion is known to reduce the variation in pelvic tilt
between standing and sitting. A flexible lumbo-pelvic unit increases
the stability of total hip arthroplasty (THA) when seated by increasing
anterior clearance and acetabular anteversion, thereby preventing
impingement of the prosthesis. Lumbar fusion may eliminate this protective
pelvic movement. The effect of lumbar fusion on the stability of
total hip arthroplasty has not previously been investigated. The Medicare database was searched for patients who had undergone
THA and spinal fusion between 2005 and 2012. PearlDiver software
was used to query the database by the International Classification
of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) procedural
code for primary THA and lumbar spinal fusion. Patients who had
undergone both lumbar fusion and THA were then divided into three
groups: 1 to 2 levels, 3 to 7 levels and 8+ levels of fusion. The
rate of dislocation in each group was established using ICD-9-CM codes.
Patients who underwent THA without spinal fusion were used as a
control group. Statistical significant difference between groups
was tested using the chi-squared test, and significance set at p
<
0.05.Aims
Patients and Methods
Objectives. Osteosynthesis of anterior pubic ramus fractures using one large-diameter screw can be challenging in terms of both surgical procedure and fixation stability. Small-fragment screws have the advantage of following the pelvic cortex and being more flexible. The aim of the present study was to biomechanically compare retrograde intramedullary fixation of the superior pubic ramus using either one large- or two small-diameter screws. Materials and Methods. A total of 12 human cadaveric hemipelvises were analysed in a matched pair study design. Bone mineral density of the specimens was 68 mgHA/cm. 3. (standard deviation (. sd). 52). The anterior pelvic ring fracture was fixed with either one 7.3 mm cannulated screw (Group 1) or two 3.5 mm pelvic cortex screws (Group 2). Progressively increasing cyclic axial loading was applied through the acetabulum. Relative movements in terms of interfragmentary displacement and gap angle at the fracture site were evaluated by means of optical movement tracking. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied to identify significant differences between the groups. Results. Initial axial construct stiffness was not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.463). Interfragmentary displacement and gap angle at the fracture site were also not statistically significantly different between the groups throughout the evaluated cycles (p ⩾ 0.249). Similarly, cycles to failure were not statistically different between Group 1 (8438, . sd. 6968) and Group 2 (10 213, . sd. 10 334), p = 0.379. Failure mode in both groups was characterised by screw cutting through the cancellous bone. Conclusion. From a biomechanical point of view, pubic ramus stabilisation with either one large or two small fragment screw osteosynthesis is comparable in osteoporotic bone. However, the two-screw fixation technique is less demanding as the smaller screws deflect at the cortical margins. Cite this article: Y. P. Acklin, I. Zderic, S. Grechenig, R. G. Richards, P. Schmitz, B. Gueorguiev. Are two retrograde 3.5 mm screws superior to one 7.3 mm screw for anterior
