ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
In vitro testing of a novel implant for angular stabilisation of the posterior pelvic ring.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDorsal pelvic ring fractures occur in younger patients due to high-energy trauma or in elderly patients due to osteoporosis as fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP). To date, there is no consensus on the optimal stabilization technique to treat fragility fractures of the posterior pelvic ring. The purpose of this biomechanical in vitro study was to evaluate a novel angle-stable nail system with respect to its stabilising ability in comparison with established procedures. MATERIALS AND
methodsEight fresh frozen human pelvic specimens (51-90 years, BMD 40-111 mg CaHA/cm³), were destabilised using a standardised FFP IIb fracture model according to Rommens and Hofmann (equivalent to AO/OTA 61C1.3) and consecutively stabilised with the different implant systems. The intact, fractured, and surgically treated pelvises were tested in a custom-developed pelvic test set up integrated into a universal spine tester. For simulating daily-life loading scenarios, physiological loads were applied to the specimen via the femora and four muscle pulls. The test protocol consisted of a two-legged stance in two loading conditions, respectively, which was followed by an alternating, gait-like stance testing protocol. Instability was assessed via the relative displacements at the fracture gaps.
resultsThe relative displacements of the fractured pelvic specimens showed significant destabilization of the pelvis compared to the intact state (p < 0.05) which could be reversed with the novel implant as well as with all conventional treatment techniques to a certain extent.
conclusionsSurgical instrumentation of dorsal pelvic ring fractures appear to be primary stable enough to allow immediate weight bearing. From a biomechanical point of view, the novel nail implant seems to be comparable or even slightly superior to already established procedures for stabilization of pelvic insufficiency fractures. However, the current clinical standard of treating FFP type IIb fractures with S1 screws has been biomechanically confirmed. Lumbopelvic suspension and S2 screws should not primarily be used for stabilization of dorsal pelvic fractures of type IIb or higher but may alternatively be used in patients in whom implantation of the novel implant or S1 screws is not possible due to anatomic conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.