Article

Complications of anterior subcutaneous internal fixation for unstable pelvis fractures: a multicenter study.

Detroit Medical Center, Wayne State University, 4D-4 University Health Center, Detroit Receiving Hospital, Detroit, MI 48201, USA.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (Impact Factor: 2.88). 01/2012; 470(8):2124-31. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2233-z
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Stabilization after a pelvic fracture can be accomplished with an anterior external fixator. These devices are uncomfortable for patients and are at risk for infection and loosening, especially in obese patients. As an alternative, we recently developed an anterior subcutaneous pelvic internal fixation technique (ASPIF).
We asked if the ASPIF (1) allows for definitive anterior pelvic stabilization of unstable pelvic injuries; (2) is well tolerated by patients for mobility and comfort; and (3) has an acceptable complication rate.
We retrospectively reviewed 91 patients who incurred an unstable pelvic injury treated with an anterior internal fixator and posterior fixation at four Level I trauma centers. We assessed (1) healing by callous formation on radiographs and the ability to weightbear comfortably; (2) patient function by their ability to sit, stand, lie on their sides, and how well they tolerated the implants; and (3) complications during the observation period. The minimum followup was 6 months (mean, 15 months; range, 6-40 months).
All 91 patients were able to sit, stand, and lie on their sides. Injuries healed without loss of reduction in 89 of 91 patients. Complications included six early revisions resulting from technical error and three infections. Irritation of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve was reported in 27 of 91 patients and resolved in all but one. Heterotopic ossification around the implants, which was asymptomatic in all cases, occurred in 32 of 91 patients.
The anterior internal fixator provided high rates of union for the anterior injury in unstable pelvic fractures. Patients were able to sit, stand and ambulate without difficulty. Infections and aseptic loosening were reduced but heterotopic ossification and irritation of the LFCN are common.
Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Rahul Vaidya, Jan 02, 2014
1 Follower
 · 
156 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Little is known about the mechanical properties of internal anterior fixators (known as INFIX), which have been proposed as subcutaneous alternatives to traditional anterior external fixators for pelvic ring disruptions. We hypothesised that INFIX has superior biomechanical performance compared with traditional external fixators because the distance from the bar to the bone is reduced. Using a commercially available synthetic bone model, 15 unstable pelvic ring injuries were simulated by excising the pubic bone through the bilateral superior and inferior rami anteriorly and the sacrum through the bilateral sacral foramen posteriorly. Three test groups were established: (1) traditional supra-acetabular external fixation, (2) INFIX with polyaxial screws, (3) INFIX with monaxial screws. Load was applied, simulating lateral compression force. Outcome measure was construct stiffness. The traditional external fixator constructs had an average stiffness of 6.21N/mm±0.40standard deviation (SD). INFIX with monaxial screws was 23% stiffer than the traditional external fixator (mean stiffness, 7.66N/mm±0.86SD; p=.01). INFIX with polyaxial screws was 26% less stiff than INFIX with monaxial screws (mean stiffness, 5.69N/mm±1.24SD; p=.05). No significant difference was noted between polyaxial INFIX and external fixators (mean stiffness, 6.21N/mm±0.40SD; p=.65). The performance of INFIX depends on the type of screw used, with monaxial screws providing significantly more stiffness than polyaxial screws. Despite the mechanical advantage of being closer to the bone, polyaxial INFIX was not stiffer than traditional external fixation. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Injury 01/2015; 20(6). DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2015.01.040 · 2.46 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose. Comparison of monoaxial and polyaxial screws with the use of subcutaneous anterior pelvic fixation. Methods. Four different groups each having 5 constructs were tested in distraction within the elastic range. Once that was completed, 3 components were tested in torsion within the elastic range, 2 to torsional failure and 3 in distraction until failure. Results. The pedicle screw systems showed higher stiffness (4.008 ± 0.113 Nmm monoaxial, 3.638 ± 0.108 Nmm Click-x; 3.634 ± 0.147 Nmm Pangea) than the exfix system (2.882 ± 0.054 Nmm) in distraction. In failure testing, monoaxial pedicle screw system was stronger (360 N) than exfixes (160 N) and polyaxial devices which failed if distracted greater than 4 cm (157 N Click-x or 138 N Pangea). The exfix had higher peak torque and torsional stiffness than all pedicle systems. In torsion, the yield strengths were the same for all constructs. Conclusion. The infix device constructed with polyaxial or monoaxial pedicle screws is stiffer than the 2 pin external fixator in distraction testing. In extreme cases, the use of reinforcement or monoaxial systems which do not fail even at 360 N is a better option. In torsional testing, the 2 pin external fixator is stiffer than the pedicle screw systems.
    12/2013; 2013:683120. DOI:10.1155/2013/683120
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anterior external fixation for pelvic fractures has been the standard for acute stabilization but definitive treatment often leads to pin tract infection, is uncomfortable, and limits patient mobility. We recently developed a subcutaneous anterior pelvic fixator which addresses these issues (INFIX). The objective of this study is to introduce the Bikini Area and Bikini Line as the subcutaneous anatomical location where this apparatus is placed. A study was preformed on eight cadaveric specimens to define the location of the subcutaneous device with respect to anatomic structures. We examined 23 people of various body mass indexes to examine the anterior pelvic anatomy. This was followed by implantation on 42 individuals in whom we reviewed CT scans to assess the location of the implant. We asked these same 42 individuals whether they could sit, stand, and lie on their sides and if they had any discomfort. We measured the dimensions of 26 retrieved rods to approximate the curve of the Bikini Line. Finally in 14 individuals we performed vascular ultrasound to assess the flow in the iliac and femoral vessels with the implant in place in the sitting and standing position. Neurovascular structures are not affected by placing the INFIX device at the Bikini Line, patients are comfortable, mobile and complications are minimized by this procedure. A rod placed on the Bikini Line which connects screws inserted into the anterior inferior iliac spine on each side does not interfere with sitting, standing, or the neurovascular structures. Clin. Anat., 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Clinical Anatomy 04/2013; 26(3). DOI:10.1002/ca.22149 · 1.16 Impact Factor