title: External fixators for pelvic fractures: comparison of the stiffness of current systems.
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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Traumatology, Academisch Medisch Centrum, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. K.J.Ponsen@amc.uva.nl
authors.forename: Kees J
authors.initials: KJ
authors.lastname: Ponsen
authors.forename: Gilbert A
authors.initials: GA
authors.lastname: Hoek van Dijke
authors.forename: Pieter
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Joosse
authors.forename: Chris J
authors.initials: CJ
authors.lastname: Snijders
mesh_terms: D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D004548:Elasticity; D004867:Equipment Design; D016267:External Fixators; D050723:Fractures, Bone / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D066298:In Vitro Techniques; D008953:Models, Anatomic; D010384:Pelvic Bones / Q000293:injuries* / Q000503:physiopathology; D016474:Weight-Bearing