Surgical exposures of the distal humeral fractures: An anatomical study of the anterior, posterior, medial and lateral approaches / 中华创伤杂志(英文版)

PURPOSE@#Exposure of the articular surface is the key to the successful treatment of intra-articular fractures of distal humerus. Anterior, posterior olecranon osteotomy as well as medial and lateral approaches are the four main approaches to the elbow. The aim of this study was to compare the exposure of distal articular surfaces of these surgical approaches.@*METHODS@#Twelve cadavers were used in this study. Each approach was performed on six elbows according to previously published procedures. After completion of each approach, the exposed articular surfaces were marked by inserting 0.5 mm K-wires along the margins. The elbow was then disarticulated and the exposed articular surfaces were painted. The distal humeral articular surfaces were then closely wrapped using a piece of fibre-glass screen net with meshes. The exposed articular surfaces and the total articular surfaces were calculated by counting the number of meshes, respectively.@*RESULTS@#The average percentages of the exposed articular surfaces for the anterior, posterior olecranon osteotomy, medial and lateral approaches were 45.7% ± 2.0%, 53.9% ± 7.1%, 20.6% ± 4.9% and 28.5% ± 6.3%, respectively.@*CONCLUSION@#The anterior and posterior approaches provide greater exposures of distal humeral articular surface than the medial and lateral ones in the treatment of distal humeral fractures.

Biomechanical effects on sacroiliac fusion for treating low back pain / 医用生物力学

Objective Based on the finite element method, both sacroiliac fusion and sacroiliac contact models were built to compare the biomechanical differences between the two models and to explore the biomechanical mechanism in the treatment of low back pain by sacroiliac fusion. Methods Two pelvic finite element models were constructed, including the pelvic ring, sacrum, part of the femur, ligaments, cartilage and joint contact. The sacroiliac joints were set to be contact in one model and fusion in the other, respectively. Differences in mechanical conduction on the pelvic ring and the stress on the sacroiliac cartilage under 500 N load between the two models were explored. Results For the fusion model, stresses and displacement on the sacroiliac joint were significantly lower than that of the contact model, especially on the sacroiliac cartilage, where the displacement was reduced by 261% from 0.83 mm to 0.23 mm, and the stresses reduced by 32% from 6.6 MPa to 5.0 MPa. However, the transfer of stress on the pelvic ring was relatively more concentrated in the fusion model. Conclusions Sacroiliac fusion may provide better therapeutic effects on the treatment of low back pain, but the risk of disc herniation and femoral head necrosis must be assessed seriously in advance.