External fixators for pelvic fractures: Comparison of the stiffness of current systems

Authors

  • Kees J Ponsen
  • Gilbert A Hoek van Dijke
  • Pieter Joosse
  • Chris J Snijders

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1080/00016470310013897

Abstract

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