External fixators for pelvic fractures: Comparison of the stiffness of current systems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00016470310013897Abstract
We evaluated the stiffness of external fixation (EF) systems with a reproducible, standardized human pelvic replica of aluminum and perspex in which a type C pelvic ring injury was created. 12 EF systems were analyzed in 2 situations that necessarily occur during a walking cycle. Endpoints were defined as 15 mm of dislocation or tolerance of the maximum load in each situation. In the no weightbearing situation, all except 2 fixators failed; in the weightbearing situation, all fixators failed. Single bar systems performed better than frame configurations. Stability provided by any external fixator is low, and in the case of a type C pelvic ring injury, it is insufficient for patient mobilization and weightbearing. Single bar systems provide more stability than frames.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Downloads
Published
2003-01-01
How to Cite
Ponsen, K. J., Hoek van Dijke, G. A., Joosse, P., & Snijders, C. J. (2003). External fixators for pelvic fractures: Comparison of the stiffness of current systems. Acta Orthopaedica, 74(2), 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016470310013897
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Acta Orthopaedica (Scandinavica) content is available freely online as from volume 1, 1930. The journal owner owns the copyright for all material published until volume 80, 2009. As of June 2009, the journal has however been published fully Open Access, meaning the authors retain copyright to their work. As of June 2009, articles have been published under CC-BY-NC or CC-BY licenses, unless otherwise specified.
