title: Comparison of three different pelvic circumferential compression devices: a biomechanical cadaver study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Pelvic circumferential compression devices are designed to stabilize the pelvic ring and reduce the volume of the pelvis following trauma. It is uncertain whether pelvic circumferential compression devices can be safely applied for all types of pelvic fractures because the effects of the devices on the reduction of fracture fragments are unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of circumferential compression devices on the dynamic realignment and final reduction of the pelvic fractures as a measure of the quality of reduction.
  
  
  METHODS
  Three circumferential compression devices were evaluated: the Pelvic Binder, the SAM Sling, and the T-POD. In sixteen cadavers, four fracture types were generated according to the Tile classification system. Infrared retroreflective markers were fixed in the different fracture fragments of each pelvis. The circumferential compression device was applied sequentially in a randomized order with gradually increasing forces applied. Fracture fragment movement was studied with use of a three-dimensional infrared video system. Dynamic realignment and final reduction of the fracture fragments during closure of the circumferential compression devices were determined. A factorial repeated-measures analysis of variance with pairwise post hoc comparisons was performed to analyze the differences in pulling force between the circumferential compression devices.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In the partially stable and unstable (Tile type-B and C) pelvic fractures, all circumferential compression devices accomplished closure of the pelvic ring and consequently reduced the pelvic volume. No adverse fracture displacement (>5 mm) was observed in these fracture types. The required pulling force to attain complete reduction at the symphysis pubis varied substantially among the three different circumferential compression devices, with a mean (and standard error of the mean) of 43 ± 7 N for the T-POD, 60 ± 9 N for the Pelvic Binder, and 112 ± 10 N for the SAM Sling.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The Pelvic Binder, SAM Sling, and T-POD provided sufficient reduction in partially stable and unstable (Tile type-B1 and C) pelvic fractures. No undesirable overreduction was noted. The pulling force that was needed to attain complete reduction of the fracture parts varied significantly among the three devices, with the T-POD requiring the lowest pulling force for fracture reduction.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery-Traumatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. e.vanlieshout@erasmusmc.nl
authors.forename: S P
authors.initials: SP
authors.lastname: Knops
authors.forename: N W L
authors.initials: NW
authors.lastname: Schep
authors.forename: C W
authors.initials: CW
authors.lastname: Spoor
authors.forename: M P J M
authors.initials: MP
authors.lastname: van Riel
authors.forename: W R
authors.initials: WR
authors.lastname: Spanjersberg
authors.forename: G J
authors.initials: GJ
authors.lastname: Kleinrensink
authors.forename: E M M
authors.initials: EM
authors.lastname: van Lieshout
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Patka
authors.forename: I B
authors.initials: IB
authors.lastname: Schipper
mesh_terms: D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D002102:Cadaver; D050723:Fractures, Bone / Q000628:therapy*; D050815:Fractures, Compression; D006620:Hip Fractures; D006801:Humans; D009989:Orthotic Devices / Q000592:standards; D010384:Pelvic Bones / Q000293:injuries*