dc.identifier.uri |
http://dx.doi.org/10.15488/12416 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
https://www.repo.uni-hannover.de/handle/123456789/12515 |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Gierig, Meike
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Liu, Fangrui
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Weiser, Lukas
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Lehmann, Wolfgang
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Wriggers, Peter
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Marino, Michele
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Saul, Dominik
|
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2022-07-04T05:03:56Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2022-07-04T05:03:56Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
2021 |
|
dc.identifier.citation |
Gierig, M.; Liu, F.; Weiser, L.; Lehmann, W.; Wriggers, P. et al.: Biomechanical Effects of a Cross Connector in Sacral Fractures – A Finite Element Analysis. In: Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 9 (2021), 669321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.669321 |
|
dc.description.abstract |
Background: Spinopelvic fractures and approaches of operative stabilization have been a source of controversial discussion. Biomechanical data support the benefit of a spinopelvic stabilization and minimally invasive procedures help to reduce the dissatisfying complication rate. The role of a cross connector within spinopelvic devices remains inconclusive. We aimed to analyze the effect of a cross connector in a finite element model (FE model). Study Design: A FE model of the L1-L5 spine segment with pelvis and a spinopelvic stabilization was reconstructed from patient-specific CT images. The biomechanical relevance of a cross connector in a Denis zone I (AO: 61-B2) sacrum fracture was assessed in the FE model by applying bending and twisting forces with and without a cross connector. Biomechanical outcomes from the numerical model were investigated also considering uncertainties in material properties and levels of osseointegration. Results: The designed FE model showed comparable values in range-of-motion (ROM) and stresses with reference to the literature. The superiority of the spinopelvic stabilization (L5/Os ilium) ± cross connector compared to a non-operative procedure was confirmed in all analyzed loading conditions by reduced ROM and principal stresses in the disk L5/S1, vertebral body L5 and the fracture area. By considering the combination of all loading cases, the presence of a cross connector reduced the maximum stresses in the fracture area of around 10%. This difference has been statistically validated (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: The implementation of a spinopelvic stabilization (L5/Os ilium) in sacrum fractures sustained the fracture and led to enhanced biomechanical properties compared to a non-reductive procedure. While the additional cross connector did not alter the resulting ROM in L4/L5 or L5/sacrum, the reduction of the maximum stresses in the fracture area was significant. © Copyright © 2021 Gierig, Liu, Weiser, Lehmann, Wriggers, Marino and Saul. |
eng |
dc.language.iso |
eng |
|
dc.publisher |
Lausanne : Frontiers Media |
|
dc.relation.ispartofseries |
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 9 (2021) |
|
dc.rights |
CC BY 4.0 Unported |
|
dc.rights.uri |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
|
dc.subject |
cross connector |
eng |
dc.subject |
finite element analysis |
eng |
dc.subject |
sacrum fracture |
eng |
dc.subject |
spinopelvic fracture |
eng |
dc.subject |
spinopelvic stabilization |
eng |
dc.subject |
Biomechanics |
eng |
dc.subject |
Computerized tomography |
eng |
dc.subject |
Fracture |
eng |
dc.subject |
Image segmentation |
eng |
dc.subject |
Stabilization |
eng |
dc.subject |
Tissue regeneration |
eng |
dc.subject |
Biomechanical data |
eng |
dc.subject |
Biomechanical effects |
eng |
dc.subject |
Biomechanical properties |
eng |
dc.subject |
Loading condition |
eng |
dc.subject |
Minimally invasive |
eng |
dc.subject |
Patient specific |
eng |
dc.subject |
Principal stress |
eng |
dc.subject |
Range of motions |
eng |
dc.subject |
Finite element method |
eng |
dc.subject.ddc |
570 | Biowissenschaften, Biologie
|
ger |
dc.title |
Biomechanical Effects of a Cross Connector in Sacral Fractures – A Finite Element Analysis |
|
dc.type |
Article |
|
dc.type |
Text |
|
dc.relation.essn |
2296-4185 |
|
dc.relation.doi |
https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.669321 |
|
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume |
9 |
|
dc.bibliographicCitation.firstPage |
669321 |
|
dc.description.version |
publishedVersion |
|
tib.accessRights |
frei zug�nglich |
|