Finite element analysis of hollow screw fixation for sacroiliac dislocation

doi:10.12307/2023.235

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The sacroiliac joint plays an important role in stabilizing the pelvic ring, and its fracture or dislocation is challenging in surgery. Despite the continuous improvement of various screw placement methods, complications still exist such as screw misplacement and neurovascular injury. How to accurately place the screw into the sacrum, confirm the position of the screw, and ensure good stability is an urgent problem to be solved.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze biomechanical differences of two different combinations of screw fixation for sacroiliac dislocation by finite element analysis.
METHODS: Human corpse specimens were used as data. The three-dimensional finite element model of the whole pelvis was constructed by the ABAQUS finite element analysis system. Finite element models of sacroiliac dislocation were established, and two combinations of screw fixation were performed. One is that S1 was treated with 2 screws of 6.0 mm in diameter + S2 was treated with 1 screw of 6.0 mm in diameter (named as S12 + S21 group), and the other is that S1 was treated with a screw of 7.3 mm in diameter + S2 was treated with a screw of 6.0 mm in diameter (named as S11 + S21 group). A vertical force of 600 N was applied to the end plate on S1, and the maximum stress of the pelvis, the maximum stress of the screw (fatigue resistance), the overall displacement value of the model and the deformation of the screw were analyzed.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) Pelvis fixation with screws in the two groups could effectively restore the conduction direction of pelvic biomechanics. The pelvic stress was less than the double-segment screw fixation stress, and the maximum stress was located on the cortical bone at the fracture end. (2) The maximum displacement of the normal pelvis was 0.080 9 mm and the maximum stress of the pelvis was 9.39 MPa. The maximum displacement of the pelvis was 0.097 8 mm and the maximum stress was 11.59 MPa in the S12+S21 group. The maximum displacement of the pelvis was 0.111 8 mm and the maximum stress was 13.51 MPa in the S11+S21 group. (3) The maximum stress was 12.35 MPa and the deformation was 0.081 11 mm in the S12+S21 group. The maximum stress was 14.53 MPa and the deformation was 0.088 2 mm in the S11+S21 group. (4) These results demonstrate that compared with the normal pelvis, there is no substantial change in the stability of the two fixation methods at two levels. The fatigue resistance of the screws with three screws is better than that with two screws in the two levels. Therefore, three-screw fixation is the first choice, but if the S1 double screw fixation is performed unconditionally, the best fixation method is to select one screw at both levels for fixation.

Key words: sacroiliac joint, sacroiliac dislocation, screw fixation, finite element analysis, pelvis

CLC Number:

Ye Haimin, Zou Huachun, Ding Linghua, You Murong. Finite element analysis of hollow screw fixation for sacroiliac dislocation[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2023, 27(13): 1993-1998.

Figures/Tables 5

References

[1] 赵英伟,靳宝成,闫冰,等.前路钢板螺钉内固定治疗髋臼骨折伴骶髂关节脱位的疗效分析[J].中外医疗,2019,38(12):31-33.
[2] WONG M, SINKLER MA, KIEL J. Anatomy, Abdomen and Pelvis, Sacroiliac Joint. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing Copyright © 2022, StatPearls Publishing LLC., 2022.
[3] CAETANO AP, MASCARENHAS VV, MACHADO PM. Axial Spondyloarthritis: Mimics and Pitfalls of Imaging Assessment. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:658538.
[4] FIANI B, SEKHON M, DOAN T, et al. Sacroiliac Joint and Pelvic Dysfunction Due to Symphysiolysis in Postpartum Women. Cureus. 2021;13:e18619.
[5] POILLIOT AJ, ZWIRNER J, DOYLE T, et al. A Systematic Review of the Normal Sacroiliac Joint Anatomy and Adjacent Tissues for Pain Physicians. Pain Physician. 2019;22:E247-e274.
[6] TAN Z, HUANG Z, LI L, et al. Classification and Treatment of Sacroiliac Joint Dislocation. Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2017;48:661-667.
[7] DENIS F, DAVIS S, COMFORT T. Sacral fractures: an important problem. Retrospective analysis of 236 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;227: 67-81.
[8] LIU Y, WANG J, ZHANG Y. Occult external iliac vein injury after anterior dislocation of the sacroiliac joint in adult patient. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2017;51:169-171.
[9] MAERTENS AS, MARTIN MP 3RD, DEAN CS, et al. Occult injuries of the contralateral sacroiliac joint in operatively treated pelvis fractures: incidence, root cause analysis, and proposal of treatment algorithm. Int Orthop. 2019;43:2399-2404.
[10] 闵锐.医源性电离辐射损伤及其生物医学防护[J].辐射防护通讯, 2013,33(3): 8-15.
[11] LIU L, ZENG D, FAN S, et al. Biomechanical study of Tile C3 pelvic fracture fixation using an anterior internal system combined with sacroiliac screws. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16:225.
[12] DYDYK AM, FORRO SD, HANNA A. Sacroiliac Joint Injury. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing Copyright © 2022, StatPearls Publishing LLC., 2022.
[13] GOLDSZTAJN F, MARIOLANI JRL, BELANGERO WD. Are Anterior Plates More Effective than Iliosacral Screws to Fix the Sacroiliac Joint? Biomechanical Study. Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo). 2020;55:497-503.
[14] CAI L, ZHANG Y, ZHENG W, et al. A novel percutaneous crossed screws fixation in treatment of Day type II crescent fracture-dislocation: A finite element analysis. J Orthop Translat. 2020;20:37-46.
[15] BREUIL V, ROUX CH, CARLE GF. Pelvic fractures: epidemiology, consequences, and medical management. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2016; 28:442-447.
[16] BULLER LT, BEST MJ, QUINNAN SM. A Nationwide Analysis of Pelvic Ring Fractures: Incidence and Trends in Treatment, Length of Stay, and Mortality. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2016;7:9-17.
[17] 杨鹏,叶添文,张帆,等.3D打印技术辅助手术治疗骶骨骨折伴骶丛神经损伤[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2015,17(1):13-17.
[18] 顾容赫.经骶髂关节置骶1骶2螺钉应用解剖[D].南宁:广西医科大学,2012.
[19] JIN Z, LI Y, YU K, et al. 3D Printing of Physical Organ Models: Recent Developments and Challenges. Adv Sci (Weinh). 2021;8:e2101394.
[20] YOON YC, MA DS, LEE SK, et al. Posterior pelvic ring injury of straddle fractures: Incidence, fixation methods, and clinical outcomes. Asian J Surg. 2021;44:59-65.
[21] MARMOR M, EL NAGA AN, BARKER J, et al. Management of Pelvic Ring Injury Patients With Hemodynamic Instability. Front Surg. 2020;7: 588845.
[22] KIM JT, RUDOLF LM, GLASER JA. Outcome of percutaneous sacroiliac joint fixation with porous plasma-coated triangular titanium implants: an independent review. Open Orthop J. 2013;7:51-56.
[23] ROMMENS PM, HESSMANN MH. Staged reconstruction of pelvic ring disruption: differences in morbidity, mortality, radiologic results, and functional outcomes between B1, B2/B3, and C-type lesions. J Orthop Trauma. 2002;16:92-98.
[24] XIANG G, DONG X, JIANG X, et al. Comparison of percutaneous cross screw fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation for pelvic Day type II crescent fracture-dislocation: case-control study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16:36.
[25] MIYAKE T, FUTAMURA K, BABA T, et al. A novel technique for stabilising sacroiliac joint dislocation using spinal instrumentation: technical notes and clinical outcomes. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2022. doi: 10.1007/s00068-021-01873-z.
[26] BOUGUENNEC N, GOUIN F, PIÉTU G. Isolated anterior unilateral sacroiliac dislocation without pubic arch disjunction. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98:359-362.
[27] LI L, LU J, YANG L, et al. Stability evaluation of anterior external fixation in patient with unstable pelvic ring fracture: a finite element analysis. Ann Transl Med. 2019;7:303.
[28] SOULTANIS K, KARALIOTAS GI, MASTROKALOS D, et al. Lumbopelvic fracture-dislocation combined with unstable pelvic ring injury: one stage stabilisation with spinal instrumentation. Injury. 2011;42:1179-1183.
[29] WU T, CHEN W, LI X, et al. Biomechanical comparison of three types of internal fixation in a type C zone II pelvic fracture model. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8:1853-1861.
[30] MATTA JM, SAUCEDO T. Internal fixation of pelvic ring fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;(242):83-97.