International Orthopaedics

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 909–914 | Cite as

A biomechanical study of sacroiliac rod fixation for unstable pelvic ring injuries: verification of the “within ring” concept

  • Kentaro Futamura
  • Tomonori Baba
  • Atsuhiko Mogami
  • Itaru Morohashi
  • Osamu Obayashi
  • Hideaki Iwase
  • Kazuo Kaneko
Original Paper



The aim of this study was to compare the fixation power of sacroiliac rod fixation (SIRF), which was developed based on our original “within ring” concept to exclude the lumbar vertebra from the fixation range, and spinopelvic fixation (SPF) in a biomechanical experiment.


SPF and SIRF were applied to the posterior element in four bones each with the pelvic ring fracture model (AO/OTA classification 61-C1.3). A 300-N axial force was loaded on the fifth lumbar vertebra of the simulated pelvis. Then the stiffness (N/m) and deformation (mm) of SPF and SIRF were determined, and the final displacement (mm) of the fracture region and angular deformity (degrees) were measured. Displacements were measured using the markers at two sites of the sacral fracture [upper margin of the sacral ala (Ala) and second sacral vertebra level (S2)] and one site of the pubic symphysis (PS), and angular deformity was measured at Ala and PS.


In SPF and SIRF, the mean stiffnesses and deformations showed no statistically significant difference. Only the vertical displacement at Ala differed significantly between SPF and SIRF (p = 0. 045), and the fixing force of SPF was higher. There was no other significant difference in vertical and horizontal displacement. The mean angular deformities also showed no significant difference between the two methods.


In biomechanics experiments, vertical resistance was stronger in SPF-treated than SIRF-treated bone, but stiffness and deformation, horizontal resistance, and angular deformity did not differ significantly.


Biomechanical study Sacroiliac rod fixation Unstable pelvic ring injuries Spinopelvic fixation 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Kach K, Trentz O (1994) Distraction spondylodesis of the sacrum in “vertical shear lesions” of the pelvis [in German]. Unfallchirurg 97:28–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bellabarba C, Schildhauer TA, Vaccaro AR et al (2006) Complications associated with surgical stabilization of high-grade sacral fracture displacements with spino-pelvic instability. Spine 31:S80–S88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schildhauer TA, Bellabarba C, Nork SE et al (2006) Decompression and lumbopelvic fixation for sacral fracture-displacements with spino-pelvic dissociation. J Orthop Trauma 20:447–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sagi HC, Militano U, Caron T et al (2009) A comprehensive analysis with minimum 1-year follow-up of vertically unstable transforaminal sacral fractures treated with triangular osteosynthesis. J Orthop Trauma 23:313–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bederman SS, Hassan JM, Shah KN, Kiester PD et al (2013) Fixation techniques for complex traumatic transverse sacral fractures: a systematic review. Spine 38:E1028–E1040Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lindahl J, Mäkinen TJ, Koskinen SK et al (2014) Factors associated with outcome of spinopelvic dissociation treated with lumbopelvic fixation. Injury 45:1914–1920CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Konig MA, Jehan S, Boszczyk AA et al (2012) Surgical management of U-shaped sacral fractures: a systematic review of current treatment strategies. Eur Spine J 21:829–836CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pearcy MJ, Portek I, Shepherd J (1984) Three dimensional X-ray analysis of normal movement in the lumbar spine. Spine 9:294–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keel MJB, Benneker LM, Siebenrock KA (2011) Less invasive lumbopelvic stabilization of posterior pelvic ring instability. J Trauma 71:E62–E70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mouhsine E, Wettstein M, Schizas C et al (2006) Modified triangular posterior osteosynthesis of unstable sacrum fracture. Eur Spine J 15:857–863CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Toogood P, McDonald E, Pekmezci M (2013) A biomechanical comparison of ipsilateral and contralateral pedicle screw placement for modified triangular osteosynthesis in unstable pelvic fractures. J Orthop Trauma 27:515–520CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karakaşlı A, Ceçen B, Erduran M, Taylan O, Hapa O, Havıtcıoğlu H (2014) Rigid fixation of the lumbar spine alters the motion and mechanical stability at the adjacent segment level. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi 25:42–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lawrence BD, Wang J, Arnold PM, Hermsmeyer J, Norvell DC, Brodke DS (2012) Predicting the risk of adjacent segment pathology after lumbar fusion: asystematic review. Spine 37:S123–S132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE (2004) Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine 29:1938–1944CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verga E, Hearn T, Posell J et al (1995) Effects of methods of internal fixation of symphyseal disruptions on stability of pelvic ring. Injury 26:75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schildhauer TA, Ledoux WR, Chapman JR et al (2003) Triangular osteosynthesis and iliosacral screw fixation for unstable sacral fractures: a cadaveric and biomechanical evaluation under cyclic loads. J Orthop Trauma 17:22–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sagi HC (2009) Technical aspects and recommended treatment algorithms in triangular osteosynthesis and spinopelvic fixation for vertical shear transforaminal sacral fractures. J Orthop Trauma 23:354–360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jazini E, Klocke N, Tannous O et al (2017) Does lumbopelvic fixation add stability? A cadaveric biomechanical analysis of an unstable pelvic fracture model. J Orthop Trauma 31:37–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryJuntendo University Shizuoka HospitalShizuokaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryJuntendo University School of MedicineTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringJuntendo University Shizuoka HospitalShizuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations