Optimal biomechanical choice of implant placement in various pilon fracture types: a finite element study

Abstract Background The research on the biomechanical characteristics of individual implant placement for pilon fractures based on the different initial direction of fracture displacement is still insufficient. This study’s aim is to compare the stress distribution in bones and implants with various...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Peizhao Liu, Xianzhong Mei, Zhixiang Wang, Feng Xu, Xianhua Cai, Kangquan Shou, Shijun Wei
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2024-11-01
Series:BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-08076-8
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850056012372901888
author Peizhao Liu
Xianzhong Mei
Zhixiang Wang
Feng Xu
Xianhua Cai
Kangquan Shou
Shijun Wei
author_facet Peizhao Liu
Xianzhong Mei
Zhixiang Wang
Feng Xu
Xianhua Cai
Kangquan Shou
Shijun Wei
author_sort Peizhao Liu
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background The research on the biomechanical characteristics of individual implant placement for pilon fractures based on the different initial direction of fracture displacement is still insufficient. This study’s aim is to compare the stress distribution in bones and implants with various pilon fracture types. Methods Varus, valgus, dorsiflexion, and plantarflexion type fractures were categorized as type I, II, III, and IV, respectively. The buttress plate was placed medially in subtypes IA and IIB, whereas it was placed anterolaterally in subtypes IB and IIA; The anterior or posterior buttress plate was utilized in subtypes IIIA and IVA, the lag screws were applied in subtypes IIIB and IVB. The maximum equivalent stress of tibia (TI-Smax) and implants (IF-Smax), stress of fracture fragments (Sfe), and axial displacement values of the fracture fragments (ADfe) in each subtype were analyzed when the ankle was in a neutral position, 15° of varus and valgus in types I and II, 15° of dorsiflexion and plantarflexion in types III and IV. Results Under the same axial stress loading conditions, TI-Smax, Sfe, ADfe of subtypes IA and IIA were significantly lower than subtypes IB and IIB, while IF-Smax of subtypes IA and IIA were obviously larger than subtypes IB and IIB. Additionally, TI-Smax, Sfe, ADfe of subtypes IIIA and IVA were considerably lower as IF-Smax met expectations compared to subtypes IIIB and IVB. Conclusion Based on these results, when making decisions for open reduction and internal fixation in various pilon fractures, the choice and placement of the implant can be recommended as follows: the medial buttress plate for varus types; the anterolateral plate for valgus types; the anterior plate for dorsiflexion types; the posterior plate for plantarflexion types.
format Article
id doaj-art-6528e614997848c8bdbb801805edbe85
institution DOAJ
issn 1471-2474
language English
publishDate 2024-11-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
spelling doaj-art-6528e614997848c8bdbb801805edbe852025-08-20T02:51:48ZengBMCBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders1471-24742024-11-012511910.1186/s12891-024-08076-8Optimal biomechanical choice of implant placement in various pilon fracture types: a finite element studyPeizhao Liu0Xianzhong Mei1Zhixiang Wang2Feng Xu3Xianhua Cai4Kangquan Shou5Shijun Wei6Department of Orthopedics, General Hospital of Central Theater Command of PLA, (Wuhan General Hospital of Guangzhou Command, Previously), Hubei ProvinceDepartment of Orthopedics, Shenzhen Pingle Orthopedic HospitalDepartment of OrthopedicsDepartment of Orthopedics, General Hospital of Central Theater Command of PLA, (Wuhan General Hospital of Guangzhou Command, Previously), Hubei ProvinceDepartment of Orthopedics, South China Hospital, Medical School, Shenzhen UniversityDepartment of Orthopedics, The First College of Clinical Medical School, China Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People’s HospitalDepartment of Orthopedics, General Hospital of Central Theater Command of PLA, (Wuhan General Hospital of Guangzhou Command, Previously), Hubei ProvinceAbstract Background The research on the biomechanical characteristics of individual implant placement for pilon fractures based on the different initial direction of fracture displacement is still insufficient. This study’s aim is to compare the stress distribution in bones and implants with various pilon fracture types. Methods Varus, valgus, dorsiflexion, and plantarflexion type fractures were categorized as type I, II, III, and IV, respectively. The buttress plate was placed medially in subtypes IA and IIB, whereas it was placed anterolaterally in subtypes IB and IIA; The anterior or posterior buttress plate was utilized in subtypes IIIA and IVA, the lag screws were applied in subtypes IIIB and IVB. The maximum equivalent stress of tibia (TI-Smax) and implants (IF-Smax), stress of fracture fragments (Sfe), and axial displacement values of the fracture fragments (ADfe) in each subtype were analyzed when the ankle was in a neutral position, 15° of varus and valgus in types I and II, 15° of dorsiflexion and plantarflexion in types III and IV. Results Under the same axial stress loading conditions, TI-Smax, Sfe, ADfe of subtypes IA and IIA were significantly lower than subtypes IB and IIB, while IF-Smax of subtypes IA and IIA were obviously larger than subtypes IB and IIB. Additionally, TI-Smax, Sfe, ADfe of subtypes IIIA and IVA were considerably lower as IF-Smax met expectations compared to subtypes IIIB and IVB. Conclusion Based on these results, when making decisions for open reduction and internal fixation in various pilon fractures, the choice and placement of the implant can be recommended as follows: the medial buttress plate for varus types; the anterolateral plate for valgus types; the anterior plate for dorsiflexion types; the posterior plate for plantarflexion types.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-08076-8Pilon fractureDistal tibial fractureFracture displacementImplantsButtress plateFinite element analysis
spellingShingle Peizhao Liu
Xianzhong Mei
Zhixiang Wang
Feng Xu
Xianhua Cai
Kangquan Shou
Shijun Wei
Optimal biomechanical choice of implant placement in various pilon fracture types: a finite element study
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Pilon fracture
Distal tibial fracture
Fracture displacement
Implants
Buttress plate
Finite element analysis
title Optimal biomechanical choice of implant placement in various pilon fracture types: a finite element study
title_full Optimal biomechanical choice of implant placement in various pilon fracture types: a finite element study
title_fullStr Optimal biomechanical choice of implant placement in various pilon fracture types: a finite element study
title_full_unstemmed Optimal biomechanical choice of implant placement in various pilon fracture types: a finite element study
title_short Optimal biomechanical choice of implant placement in various pilon fracture types: a finite element study
title_sort optimal biomechanical choice of implant placement in various pilon fracture types a finite element study
topic Pilon fracture
Distal tibial fracture
Fracture displacement
Implants
Buttress plate
Finite element analysis
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-08076-8
work_keys_str_mv AT peizhaoliu optimalbiomechanicalchoiceofimplantplacementinvariouspilonfracturetypesafiniteelementstudy
AT xianzhongmei optimalbiomechanicalchoiceofimplantplacementinvariouspilonfracturetypesafiniteelementstudy
AT zhixiangwang optimalbiomechanicalchoiceofimplantplacementinvariouspilonfracturetypesafiniteelementstudy
AT fengxu optimalbiomechanicalchoiceofimplantplacementinvariouspilonfracturetypesafiniteelementstudy
AT xianhuacai optimalbiomechanicalchoiceofimplantplacementinvariouspilonfracturetypesafiniteelementstudy
AT kangquanshou optimalbiomechanicalchoiceofimplantplacementinvariouspilonfracturetypesafiniteelementstudy
AT shijunwei optimalbiomechanicalchoiceofimplantplacementinvariouspilonfracturetypesafiniteelementstudy