Skip to main content
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Download PDF

Effect of different lumbar–iliac fixation and sacral slope for Tile C1.3 pelvic fractures: a biomechanical study

Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology volume 25, Article number: 32 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Lumbar–iliac fixation (LIF) is a common treatment for Tile C1.3 pelvic fractures, but different techniques, including L4–L5/L5 unilateral LIF (L4–L5/L5 ULIF), bilateral LIF (BLIF), and L4–L5/L5 triangular osteosynthesis (L4–L5/L5 TOS), still lack biomechanical evaluation. The sacral slope (SS) is key to the vertical shear of the sacrum but has not been investigated for its biomechanical role in lumbar–iliac fixation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the biomechanical effects of different LIF and SS on Tile C1.3 pelvic fracture under two-legged standing load in human cadavers.

Methods

Eight male fresh-frozen human lumbar–pelvic specimens were used in this study. Compressive force of 500 N was applied to the L4 vertebrae in the two-legged standing position of the pelvis. The Tile C1.3 pelvic fracture was prepared, and the posterior pelvic ring was fixed with L5 ULIF, L4–L5 ULIF, L5 TOS, L4–L5 TOS, and L4–L5 BLIF, respectively. Displacement and rotation of the anterior S1 foramen at 30° and 40° sacral slope (SS) were analyzed.

Results

The displacement of L4–L5/L5 TOS in the left–right and vertical direction, total displacement, and rotation in lateral bending decreased significantly, which is more pronounced at 40° SS. The difference in stability between L4–L5 and L5 ULIF was not significant. BLIF significantly limited left–right displacement. The ULIF vertical displacement at 40° SS was significantly higher than that at 30° SS.

Conclusions

This study developed an in vitro two-legged standing pelvic model and demonstrated that TOS enhanced pelvic stability in the coronal plane and cephalad–caudal direction, and BLIF enhanced stability in the left–right direction. L4–L5 ULIF did not further improve the immediate stability, whereas TOS is required to increase the vertical stability at greater SS.

Introduction

Tile C1.3 pelvic fracture is a unilateral unstable fracture of the posterior ring, with a fracture line involving the sacrum [1, 2]. Surgical treatment is usually required to reestablish the vertical and rotational stability of the pelvic ring, otherwise serious complications, such as nonunion of fractures, loosening or rupture of internal fixation will occur [3, 4]. Because of the predominantly cancellous bone of the sacrum, weak soft tissue coverage and the high loading at the lumbosacral junction, the complication rate associated with internal fixation is high [5, 6]. There is still no clinical consensus on the treatment of Tile C1.3 [7], but lumbar–iliac fixation (LIF) is an ideal clinical treatment to restore pelvic stability because of its less invasive and proven technique. Common clinical use of LIF includes: L4–L5/L5 unilateral LIF (L4–L5/L5 ULIF), bilateral LIF (BLIF), and L4–L5/L5 triangular osteosynthesis (L4–L5/L5 TOS). However, clinicians are hesitant to choose an ideal LIF due to its high risk of surgical invasion and infection [8, 9]. Therefore, the biomechanical advantages of these LIF urgently need to be verified so as to provide references to the clinical treatments and minimize the risk.

The two-legged standing pelvis model was initially developed to evaluate posterior pelvic ring internal fixation, which can better simulate the state of human pelvis under two-legged stance [10,11,12,13]. The one-legged standing pelvis model was also established to verify anterior and posterior pelvic ring fixations in previous biomechanical studies [14,15,16,17]. However, none of these pelvic models were able to address the effects of the different morphologies of the pelvis in the standing position.

The sacral slope (SS) is an important parameter of spinal sagittal balance [18], which equals to pelvic incidence minuses pelvic tilt, and equals to lower lumbar lordosis. Larger SS leads to greater sagittal shear of the sacrum [19, 20], which may lead to internal fixation failure. However, the SS has not been thoroughly investigated for its biomechanical role in lumbar–pelvic fixation.

In this study, we developed an in vitro lumbar–pelvic loading model in two-legged standing to achieve the desired SS. The aim of this study is to evaluate the biomechanical effects of L5 ULIF, L4–L5 ULIF, L4–L5 BLIF, L5 TOS, and L4–L5 TOS for Tile C1.3 pelvic fracture under two-legged standing load at 30° and 40° SS.

Materials and methods

Specimens and Tile C1.3 pelvic fracture model

This in vitro study was approved by the ethics committee. Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric male lumbar–pelvic specimens (mean age 40.5 years, range 25–65 years) were taken radiographs in anteroposterior, inlet and outlet view to rule out abnormality or injury. The specimens were stored at −20 °C and thawed at room temperature 12 h before testing. Saline was sprayed on the surface during the tests to keep the soft tissue moist. To construct Tile C1.3 pelvic fracture model, an oscillating saw blade was used to cut off the symphysis pubis and to osteotomize the posterior ring from the left S1 and S2 foramen to the left alar [21,22,23,24,25]. (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Schematic of fracture model. The red lines show the osteotomy lines. The yellow point is the virtual point and the origin of the local coordinate system. The x axis, y axis, and z axis represent the left–right, up–down, and front–back direction. Four scales were placed for motion tracking

Full size image

Fracture fixation

For each specimen, the anterior pelvic ring was fixed with a pubic symphyseal anatomic plate (Double Medical Technology, Inc., Xiamen, China), while the sacral fracture was fixed with five different lumbopelvic fixations (Weihai Weigao MEDICAL Devices Co., Weihai, China) in random order. The five posterior pelvic ring fixations were (1) L5 ULIF, (2) L4–L5 ULIF, (3) L4–L5 BLIF with transversal rod connection, (4) L5 TOS, and (5) L4–L5 TOS (Fig. 2). The lumbar pedicle screws and iliac screws were multiaxial screws measuring ϕ 6.5 mm × 45 mm and ϕ 7.5 mm × 80 mm, respectively. The titanium rods were 5.0 mm in diameter and the sacroiliac screws were ϕ 7.3 mm cannulated lag screws. These fixations were applied by the same skilled clinical investigator. An X-ray examination was performed to verify proper reduction and fixation.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Anteroposterior and lateral pelvic X-rays of L5 ULIF, L4–L5 ULIF, L4–L5 BLIF, L5 TOS, and L4–L5 TOS. ULIF unilateral lumbar–iliac fixation, BLIF bilateral lumbar–iliac fixation, TOS triangular osteosynthesis

Full size image

In vitro pelvic loading model

The superior part of the L4 body was embedded with dental stone in a PVC casting mold, keeping the L4 superior endplate horizontal. The mold was rigidly connected to a fixture, which had a transversal pivot and an anteroposterior slider, ensuring the vertical load on the L4. This structure allowed the lumbar–pelvic specimen to rotate and move during loading. (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Anteroposterior (A) and lateral (B) views of experimental setup simulating pelvic motion in two-legged stance. L4 body was fixed to fixture with a pivot and a slider. Metal three-dimensional-printed femur supported the specimen. Cables and pulleys balance the pelvis. LED markers were attached to the alar and iliac crest

Full size image

A pair of metal three-dimensional (3D)-printed proximal femurs were prepared with the femoral collodiaphyseal angle was 130° and anteversion angle was 15° and fitted into the acetabulum and secured to the platform of the material testing machine.

In addition, 2.5-mm-diameter steel cables were anchored bilaterally to the anterior superior iliac spines of the pelvic specimen and connected by two pulleys, which were fixed to the platform. The cable length changes led the entire specimen to rotate around the hip joints and adjust SS.

Biomechanical testing

A 1.0-mm Kirschner wire was inserted parallel to the S1 endplate for SS measurement. The displacement and rotation between fracture ends at the ipsilateral S1 foramen were measured for each fixation under loading with 30° and 40° SS. A servo electromagnetic material testing machine (E10000Puls, Instron Ltd., Norwood, MA, US) applied three cycles of axial compressive force ranging from 50 to 500 N at a rate of 5 N/s to the L4 vertebrae via the loading fixture.

Kirschner wires of 1.5-mm were inserted into bilateral sacral alar and iliac crest, respectively, and each Kirschner wire was attached with four infrared LED markers. Three-dimensional motion of the markers was measured by an optotrack camera system (Certus, NDI, Waterloo, Canada). Data sampling frequency was 20 Hz in all tests.

Data analysis

A virtual point was set as the origin of the 3D coordinate system at the left anterior foramen of S1 located in the line of the Tile C1.3 fracture (Fig. 1). The displacement and rotation were the relative movement between fracture fragments, including the displacement Tx in the left–right direction, Ty in the up–down direction, and Tz in the anterior–posterior direction, as well as flexion–extension Rx, axial-rotation Ry, and lateral-bending Rz based on the conventional spinal motion analysis, respectively. Total displacement (Ttotal) could also be calculated.

All data analyses were performed using STATISTICA software (v.7, Dell, TX). Analysis of variance with repeated measures in a generalized linear model was used to first analyze the effects of SS (30° or 40°), additional iliosacral screw fixation (ULIF or TOS) and fixing level (L5 or L4–L5 fixation) and then the effects of fixing side (with or without traversal connector between fragments) and SS (30° or 40°). SNK was used to test differences between groups, provided that the effects of the factors were significant. The significance level was placed at p < 0.05.

Results

In this study, no significant screw loosening of anterior or posterior ring fixation, or destruction of the specimens was observed. The displacement and rotational motion following each fixation were listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Mean and standard deviation of displacements and rotations of Tile C1.3 pelvic fracture fixations under lumbar axial compressive force
Full size table

TOS significantly improved the pelvic stability compared with ULIF. Specifically, the TOS significantly reduced displacement in the left–right and vertical directions, total displacement, and lateral bending from 0.61 mm, 0.80 mm, 1.33 mm, and 0.84°, respectively, to 0.43 mm, 0.43 mm, 0.90 mm, and 0.42° (Figs. 4 and 5). At 40° SS, TOS significantly improved the stability of L5 ULIF and L4-5 ULIF in vertical displacement and the stability of L5 ULIF stability in total displacement (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

The effects of three factors, including sacral slope (30° or 40°), additional iliosacral screw fixation (ULIF or TOS) and fixing level (L5 or L4–L5 fixation) on fracture displacement. ULIF Unilateral lumbar–iliac fixation, TOS triangular osteosynthesis. Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals, * indicates significant factor differences, and # indicates significant differences between groups

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

The effects of three factors, sacral slope (30° or 40°), additional iliosacral screw fixation (ULIF or TOS), and fixing level (L5 or L4–L5 fixation), on fracture rotation. ULIF Unilateral lumbar–iliac fixation, TOS triangular osteosynthesis. Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals, * indicates significant factor differences, and # indicates significant differences between groups

Full size image

ULIF was more affected by the SS. At 30° SS, the displacement in the left–right and vertical directions, the total displacement, and the lateral bending were smaller than those at 40° SS, although the difference between SS was insignificant (Figs. 4 and 5). This also suggested that TOS had a greater role in limiting the fracture motion at larger SS.

Fixing level extended to L4 did not significantly improve stability at different SS, no matter in ULIF or TOS, and even led to more fracture motion (Fig. 4).

When analyzing the effect of fixing side and the SS, we found that BLIF significantly limited left–right displacement when compared with ULIF (0.45 mm versus 0.60 mm). Vertical displacement of the L4–L5 ULIF was 0.85 mm at 40° sacral slope and significantly higher than that at 30° sacral slope (0.55 mm) (Fig. 6). The bilateral fixation also limited axial rotation and increased anteroposterior displacement without significant difference to the unilateral one. A comparison of L4–5 BLIF and L4–5 TOS was also performed, and the result showed that L4–5 TOS was solider than L4–5 BLIF vertically at 40° SS (P = 0.010).

Fig. 6
figure 6

The effects of two factors, including fixing side (unilateral or bilateral) and sacral slope, on fracture displacement and rotation. Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals, * indicates significant factor differences, and # indicates significant differences between groups

Full size image

Discussion

The goal of treating Tile C1.3 pelvic fracture is to restore normal structure of the pelvic ring and rigidly fix it. For pelvic fractures that are difficult to reduce, especially the old fractures, LIF is an important surgical method for the treatment of Tile C1.3 pelvic fractures because of its strong reduction force and solid fixation. In this study, an in vitro biomechanical model of pelvic loading in two-legged stance was developed to factor analyze five LIF techniques, as well as sacral slope. The TOS fixation was shown to enhance the pelvic stability and significantly limited the motion in the coronal plane and cephalad–caudal direction, whereas L4–L5 ULIF did not further improve the immediate stability. BLIF significantly improved the stability in the left–right direction, but its vertical stability was significantly affected by the SS, suggesting that stronger fixation is required at greater SS.

The TOS fixation is a rigid triangular structure combined with the ULIF and the iliosacral screw, which provides multiplanar stability, facilitates early mobilization, reduces mortality, and protects the local neuroanatomical structures from additional injury [25,26,27,28,29]. However, these clinical advantages need to be confirmed by biomechanical studies, especially whether they are sufficiently stable in the basic functional posture of two-legged standing. The present study shows that TOS significantly enhanced the stability in all directions except motion in anterior–posterior direction or flexion–extension, supporting that TOS can provide solid instant stability for Tile C1.3 pelvic fracture.

Our study also shows that ULIF extended to L4 did not significantly improve the immediate stability, i.e., the stability of the L4–L5 ULIF and L4–L5 TOS was similar to that of the L5 ULIF and L5 TOS in the case of different SS. In the view of the principle of treatment of spinal fractures, both the upper and lower two segments of the fractured segment should be fixed to improve the reduction effect on the fracture and to minimize axial rotational motion. However, short fixation can surprisingly provide better stability and clinical efficacy than long fixation according to previous reports [30, 31]. The primary role of ULIF is to resist separation of the fractured posterior pelvic ring, which may explain the lack of stability-gaining effect of fixation extending to L4. In clinical practice, the L5 ULIF or the L5 TOS is enough to achieve strong fixation, which can reduce such complications as surgical invasion and postoperative infection.

This study further demonstrates that in the ULIF, the displacement in the left–right and vertical directions was significantly greater at 40° SS than that at 30° SS. However, the difference between two SS was not significant in either L4–L5 TOS or L5 TOS. We ascribed this phenomenon to the “central fixation” [32] of the iliosacral screw, which may improve the stability of the posterior pelvic ring in patients. L5 TOS is recommended for patients with a large SS to ensure the stability of fixation. In addition, studies have been performed to assess the effect of spinopelvic parameters on lumbar spine loading [33] and found that shear forces were greater at the L5–S1 segment at larger SS. We attribute the weakening of the vertical stability of the posterior pelvic ring with increasing sacral slope to the fact that increased lumbosacral shear requires stronger posterior ring fixation of the pelvic fracture, and additional iliosacral screw fixation can be effective in resisting lumbosacral shear. This study reveals for the first time the biomechanical influence of SS in posterior pelvic ring fixation, suggesting clinical attention to the fact that the vertical stability of posterior pelvic ring fixation is reduced in patients with higher sacral slope, which is also informative for postoperative rehabilitation.

The present study also demonstrated that the BLIF significantly limited left–right displacement when compared with the ULIF. From the perspective of spine biomechanics, bilateral fixation provides a more solid upper-end anchorage for Tile 1.3 pelvic fractures, which should increase the stability of the fracture fixation. However, the BLIF reduced the left–right displacement by only about 0.15 mm, and it is debatable whether it is of clinical significance. In terms of the magnitude of fracture displacement, the effect of SS appeared to be more pronounced, with the results of this study showing that a 10° increase in SS was associated with a 0.37 mm increase in vertical displacement. Both the L4–5 BLIF and the L4–5 TOS had a transversal connector between fracture fragments. The traversal connector of BLIF (the connecting rod) is eccentric fixation with small diameter and doubtful stability, while the one of TOS (the iliosacral screw) is central fixation with larger diameter and stronger stability. The biomechanical analysis also showed that BLIF could only increase the lateral stability compared with ULIF, while TOS could increase the total, vertical, and lateral one. The Tile C1.3 pelvic fracture lacks the total, vertical, and lateral stability, so the BLIF was not an ideal choice for this type of fracture, and we are cautious about it given its surgical costs and risks.

In a study by Roussouly et al. [34], 160 asymptomatic adult volunteers underwent full-length lateral X-rays of the spine in a standard standing position, and the mean sacral slope was 39.9 ± 8.2°. Moreover, in a similar study by Zhou et al. [35], the mean sacral slope was 34.0 ± 7.1°. Therefore, two angles of 30° and 40° were set in the present study to analyze the effect of sacral slope on lumbar–iliac fixation was appropriate, and it also confirmed the effect of pelvic parameters on the lumbar–iliac fixation.

The two-legged standing model used in this study is a validated biomechanical model which was originally developed by Hearn et al. [36] and has been used in many studies to assess the biomechanics of pelvic fixation effectiveness [10,11,12,13]. Specifically, the two-legged standing model is more suitable for biomechanical evaluation of pelvic fracture, as it indicates the physiological loading on the pelvis, where the load from the lumbar spine is transmitted through the sacrofemoral arch to the femur, and the pubic symphysis is distracted through the corresponding para-arch. In the present study, two metal femoral heads supported the bilateral acetabulum without affecting the pelvis motion during loading. The steel cables anchored to the anterior superior iliac spine anterior to the center of the femoral head adjust the SS, simulate the action of the hip flexors [8, 37], and maintain pelvic balance under loading.

In this study, fresh frozen cadaveric spinal–pelvic specimens with preserved major ligamentous provided a better representation of the in vivo condition [38] but with greater individual variability than artificial pelvic models with high homogeneity and better reproducibility [17]. A repeated-measures study design was used in this study, which reduced the effect of individual differences to some extent and still reflected the effects of different factors. Second, changing different internal fixations on the same specimen may affect the strength of the bone–screw interface. In this study, an experienced clinician placed the screws as close as possible to the original screw trajectory and achieved similar screw purchase during instrumentation. In addition, the 500 N axial compressive load was used and should not damage the bone–screw interface based on previous studies [39].

In conclusion, we developed an in vitro Tile C1.3 pelvic fractures model under two-legged standing load and confirmed that TOS enhanced the stability of LIF and significantly reduced the motion of the fracture fragments in the coronal plane and cephalad–caudal direction, whereas L4–L5 ULIF did not further improve the immediate stability. BLIF significantly improved the stability in the right–left direction, but its vertical stability was significantly affected by the SS. This study reveals the biomechanical impact of SS to LIF, suggesting that clinical attention needs to be paid to the vertical stability of posterior ring fixation of pelvic fractures in patients with higher sacral slope.

Availability of data and materials

Please contact author for data requests.

Abbreviations

LIF:

Lumbar–iliac fixation

ULIF:

Unilateral lumbar–iliac fixation

BLIF:

Bilateral lumbar–iliac fixation

TOS:

Triangular osteosynthesis

SS:

Sacral slope

References

  1. Tile M (1996) Acute pelvic fractures: I. Causation and classification. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 4(3):143–151. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-199605000-00004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Giorgi PD, Gallazzi E, Bove F, Mezzadri U, Pesenti G, Sanchez-Rosemberg G et al (2022) Reliability and reproducibility analysis of the AOSpine Sacral Fractures Classification System by spinal and pelvic surgeons. Injury 53(6):2110–2113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2022.03.003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Küper MA, Trulson A, Minarski C, Stuby F, Stöckle U, Konrads C (2021) Risks and strategies to avoid approach-related complications during operative treatment of pelvic ring or acetabular fractures. Z Orthop Unfall 159(2):144–152. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1023-4756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wakayama Y, Higashi T, Kobayashi N, Choe H, Matsumoto M, Abe T et al (2022) Clinical utility of minimally invasive posterior internal fixation within the pelvic ring using S2 alar iliac screws for unstable pelvic ring fracture. Injury 53(10):3371–3376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2022.08.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gutierrez-Gomez S, Wahl L, Blecher R, Olewnik Ł, Iwanaga J, Maulucci CM et al (2021) Sacral fractures: an updated and comprehensive review. Injury 52(3):366–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2020.11.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Esmende SM, Shah KN, Daniels AH (2018) Spinopelvic fixation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 26(11):396–401. https://doi.org/10.5435/jaaos-d-15-00738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cai L, Zhang Y, Chen C, Lou Y, Guo X, Wang J (2018) 3D printing-based minimally invasive cannulated screw treatment of unstable pelvic fracture. J Orthop Surg Res 13(1):71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0778-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Pohlemann T, Angst M, Schneider E, Ganz R, Tscherne H (1993) Fixation of transforaminal sacrum fractures: a biomechanical study. J Orthop Trauma 7(2):107–117. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-199304000-00002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bellabarba C, Schildhauer TA, Vaccaro AR, Chapman JR (2006) Complications associated with surgical stabilization of high-grade sacral fracture dislocations with spino-pelvic instability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(11 Suppl):S80–S88. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000217949.31762.be. (discussion S104)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Varga E, Hearn T, Powell J, Tile M (1995) Effects of method of internal fixation of symphyseal disruptions on stability of the pelvic ring. Injury 26(2):75–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-1383(95)92180-i

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vrahas M, Hern TC, Diangelo D, Kellam J, Tile M (1995) Ligamentous contributions to pelvic stability. Orthopedics 18(3):271–274. https://doi.org/10.3928/0147-7447-19950301-09

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim WY, Hearn TC, Seleem O, Mahalingam E, Stephen D, Tile M (1999) Effect of pin location on stability of pelvic external fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 361:237–244. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199904000-00030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Moed BR, O’Boynick CP, Bledsoe JG (2014) Locked versus standard unlocked plating of the symphysis pubis in a Type-C pelvic injury: a cadaver biomechanical study. Injury 45(4):748–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2013.11.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Simonian PT, Routt ML Jr, Harrington RM, Tencer AF (1994) Internal fixation of the unstable anterior pelvic ring: a biomechanical comparison of standard plating techniques and the retrograde medullary superior pubic ramus screw. J Orthop Trauma 8(6):476–482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jordan MC, Brems AC, Heintel T, Jansen H, Hoelscher-Doht S, Meffert RH (2019) The anterior subcutaneous pelvic ring fixator: no biomechanical advantages compared with external fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 101(19):1724–1731. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.18.01363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vigdorchik JM, Esquivel AO, Jin X, Yang KH, Onwudiwe NA, Vaidya R (2012) Biomechanical stability of a supra-acetabular pedicle screw internal fixation device (INFIX) vs external fixation and plates for vertically unstable pelvic fractures. J Orthop Surg Res 7:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799x-7-31

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Vigdorchik JM, Esquivel AO, Jin X, Yang KH, Vaidya R (2013) Anterior internal fixator versus a femoral distractor and external fixation for sacroiliac joint compression and single stance gait testing: a mechanical study in synthetic bone. Int Orthop 37(7):1341–1346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1890-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Le Huec JC, Thompson W, Mohsinaly Y, Barrey C, Faundez A (2019) Sagittal balance of the spine. Eur Spine J 28(9):1889–1905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06083-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Laouissat F, Sebaaly A, Gehrchen M, Roussouly P (2018) Classification of normal sagittal spine alignment: refounding the Roussouly classification. Eur Spine J 27(8):2002–2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5111-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Suzuki H, Imai N, Nozaki A, Hirano Y, Endo N (2020) Anatomical sacral slope, a new pelvic parameter, is associated with lumbar lordosis and pelvic incidence in healthy Japanese women: a retrospective cross-sectional study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 28(1):2309499019888809. https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499019888809

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Liu L, Zeng D, Fan S, Peng Y, Song H, Jin D et al (2021) Biomechanical study of Tile C3 pelvic fracture fixation using an anterior internal system combined with sacroiliac screws. J Orthop Surg Res 16(1):225. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02348-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Vigdorchik JM, Jin X, Sethi A, Herzog DT, Oliphant BW, Yang KH et al (2015) A biomechanical study of standard posterior pelvic ring fixation versus a posterior pedicle screw construct. Injury 46(8):1491–1496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2015.04.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wu T, Chen W, Li X, Zhang Q, Lv HZ, Zhang YZ (2015) Biomechanical comparison of three types of internal fixation in a type C zone II pelvic fracture model. Int J Clin Exp Med 8(2):1853–1861

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Griffin DR, Starr AJ, Reinert CM, Jones AL, Whitlock S (2006) Vertically unstable pelvic fractures fixed with percutaneous iliosacral screws: does posterior injury pattern predict fixation failure? J Orthop Trauma 20(1 Suppl):S30–S36 (discussion S6)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schildhauer TA, Ledoux WR, Chapman JR, Henley MB, Tencer AF, Routt ML Jr (2003) Triangular osteosynthesis and iliosacral screw fixation for unstable sacral fractures: a cadaveric and biomechanical evaluation under cyclic loads. J Orthop Trauma 17(1):22–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-200301000-00004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Patel S, Ghosh A, Jindal K, Kumar V, Aggarwal S, Kumar P (2022) Spinopelvic fixation for vertically unstable AO type C pelvic fractures and sacral fractures with spinopelvic dissociation—a systematic review and pooled analysis involving 479 patients. J Orthop 29:75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2022.01.010

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Schildhauer TA, Josten C, Muhr G (2006) Triangular osteosynthesis of vertically unstable sacrum fractures: a new concept allowing early weight-bearing. J Orthop Trauma 20(1 Suppl):S44-51

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Luo Y, He L, Li Y, Xie J, Gong S, Zhang Q et al (2022) Sacral osteotomy combined with triangular osteosynthesis in the treatment of malunion and nonunion of vertically displaced pelvic fractures. J Orthop Surg Res 17(1):409. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03296-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Hu X, Pei F, Wang G, He J, Kong Q, Tu C (2013) Application triangular osteosynthesis for vertical unstable sacral fractures. Eur Spine J 22(3):503–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2561-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Li Y, Ou Y, Zhu Y, He B, Xu S, Yu H (2020) Effectiveness of short-segment fixation versus long-segment fixation for degenerative scoliosis with Cobb Angle 20°~40°: a retrospective observational study. Med Sci Monit 26:e923656. https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.923656

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Aebli N, Timm K, Patrick M, Krebs J (2014) Short-segment posterior instrumentation combined with anterior spondylodesis using an autologous rib graft in thoracolumbar burst fractures. Acta Orthop 85(1):84–90. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2013.871137

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Collinge C, Coons D, Aschenbrenner J (2005) Risks to the superior gluteal neurovascular bundle during percutaneous iliosacral screw insertion: an anatomical cadaver study. J Orthop Trauma 19(2):96–101. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-200502000-00005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bassani T, Casaroli G, Galbusera F (2019) Dependence of lumbar loads on spinopelvic sagittal alignment: an evaluation based on musculoskeletal modeling. PLoS ONE 14(3):e0207997. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207997

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J (2005) Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(3):346–353. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000152379.54463.65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhou S, Sun Z, Li W, Zou D, Li W (2022) The pelvic incidence stratified sagittal spinopelvic alignment in asymptomatic chinese population with different age groups. Glob Spine J 12(8):1821–1826. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568221989647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tile M (1995) Fractures of the pelvis and acetabulum, 2nd edn. Williams & Wilkins, pp 22–36

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ponsen KJ, Joosse P, Van Dijke GA, Snijders CJ (2007) External fixation of the pelvic ring: an experimental study on the role of pin diameter, pin position, and parasymphyseal fixator pins. Acta Orthop 78(5):648–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670710014347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Comstock CP, van der Meulen MC, Goodman SB (1996) Biomechanical comparison of posterior internal fixation techniques for unstable pelvic fractures. J Orthop Trauma 10(8):517–522. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-199611000-00001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Berber O, Amis AA, Day AC (2011) Biomechanical testing of a concept of posterior pelvic reconstruction in rotationally and vertically unstable fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(2):237–244. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.93b2.24567

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the following people for their efforts and help in the completion of this study: Zhiping Huang for testing and data collection and Fuming Huang, Xiangyuan Wen, Yuancheng Liu, Wenquan Xu, and Jiacheng Li for the specimen preparation.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (82072411, 81972110); Innovation fund cultivation project of National Clinical Research Center for Orthopedics Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation (2021-NCRC-CXJJ-PY-06); National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFC2504303).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China

    Shicai Fan, Zhiyong Hou, Wei Chen & Yingze Zhang

  2. Department of Traumatic Surgery, Center for Orthopaedic Surgery, Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

    Shicai Fan, Hongjie Luo, Sheqiang Chen, Haibo Xiang, Qiguang Mai, Zhenhua Zhu & Yuhui Chen

  3. Division of Spine Surgery, Department of Orthopaedics, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

    Qingan Zhu

Authors
  1. Shicai Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hongjie Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sheqiang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Haibo Xiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Qiguang Mai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zhenhua Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yuhui Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Zhiyong Hou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Wei Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Qingan Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Yingze Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.F. and Y.Z. designed the study. H.L. and S.C. performed experiments. H.X., Q.M., Z.H., and W.C. collected the data. S.F. and Q.Z. drafted the manuscript. Z.Z. and Y.C. analyzed and interpreted the data. Y.Z. and Q.Z. revised the manuscript and provided final approval of the submitted version. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Qingan Zhu or Yingze Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by Ethics Committee of the Third Affiliated Hospital, Southern Medical University (ethical number: 2021-Ethical-Review-008). Consent to participate was not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fan, S., Luo, H., Chen, S. et al. Effect of different lumbar–iliac fixation and sacral slope for Tile C1.3 pelvic fractures: a biomechanical study. J Orthop Traumatol 25, 32 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-024-00776-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-024-00776-0

Keywords