English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Incidence of pelvic ring fractures has increased over the past four decades, especially after low-impact trauma-classified as fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP). To date, there is a lack of biomechanical evidence for the superiority of one existing fixation techniques over another. An FFP type IIc was simulated in 50 artificial pelvises, assigned to 5 study groups: Sacroiliac (SI) screw, SI screw plus supra-acetabular external fixator, SI screw plus plate, SI screw plus retrograde transpubic screw, or S1/S2 ala-ilium screws. The specimens were tested under progressively increasing cyclic loading. Axial stiffness and cycles to failure were analysed. Displacement at the fracture sites was evaluated, having been continuously captured via motion tracking.

Biomechanical Comparison of Five Fixation Techniques for Unstable Fragility Fractures of the Pelvic Ring