Araştırma Çıktıları | TR-Dizin | WoS | Scopus | PubMed

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/4806

Browse

Filters

2021 - 20222

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Haberal, BahtiyarHas files: No

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Does an infra pectineal plate alone provide adequate fixation in anterior column posterior hemitransverse acetabular fractures? A comparative biomechanical study
    (2022) Simsek, Ekin Kaya; Haberal, Bahtiyar; Mahmuti, Ates; Balcik, Bedi Cenk; Demirors, Huseyin; 0000-0002-1668-6997; 35920432; W-9080-2019
    BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to compare biomechanical properties of suprapectineal (SP) plate fixation, infrapectineal (IP) plate fixation, and both SP and IP plate fixation in anterior column posterior hemitransverse (ACPHT) fractures of the acetabulum using posterior and anterior column screws. METHODS: In 21 hard plastic left hemipelvis models, ACPHT fractures of the acetabulum were created, and in three different fixation groups, the methods were compared: Group 1: SP plating using a 3.5 mm reconstruction plate and cortical screw fixation, Group 2: Infrapectineal plating using 3.5 mm reconstruction plate and cortical screws combined with posterior and anterior column screws, and Group 3: Combined fixation with SP and IP plating using 3.5 mm reconstruction plates and cortical screws. Maximum load to failure (strength) of these three groups was compared between groups. RESULTS: The mean maximum load of failure for three groups was 2921 N, 2018 N, and 3658 N, respectively. When strength was compared considering the force that causing implant failure, it was determined that the strongest fixation was achieved when SP and IP fixation method were applied together, followed by SP only fixation and IP fixation supported by anterior and posterior column screws, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The combined application of SP and IP fixation provides the most stable fixation of the ACPHT acetabular fractures, and IP fixation does not provide comparable biomechanical stability despite reinforcement with three-column screws placed away from the plate. Although IP fixation supported by anterior and posterior column screws with the limited combined approach is less invasive approach for patients, SP fixation should be included in the surgical treatment method to ensure adequate stability.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Biomechanical Comparison of Polymethylmethacrylate Augmentation Methods in Failed Pedicle Screw Revision
    (2021) Haberal, Bahtiyar; Temiz, Abdulaziz; Tuncay, Ismail Cengiz; 0000-0002-1668-6997; 34374983; W-9080-2019
    AIM: To compare biomechanical results between different polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) augmentation methods on failed lumbar pedicle screw models of animal vertebrae. MATERIAL and METHODS: Thirty lumbar vertebrae were harvested from six calves, and their bone mineral density was measured. 60 Polyaxial pedicle screws were inserted to all vertebrae. Pull-out tests were performed to all specimens on an Instron machine. The specimens were randomly divided into four groups. The same screws used in primary screwing process were labeled and used in revision. Screws in the first group were augmented by injecting PMMA into the failed screw hole with a syringe; screws in the second group by inserting bone graft and roll-shaped PMMA, screws in the third group by inserting bone graft and injecting PMMA with a syringe; and the fourth group by inserting bone graft and injecting PMMA through a fenestrated pedicle screw. The pull-out strength (POS) results of all specimens were recorded and compared with statistical analyses. RESULTS: The mean BMD of the vertebrae was 1.31 +/- 0.225 g/cm2 and no significant difference was found between the groups (p>0.05). The mean POS of the primary screws in the first, second, third, and fourth groups were 2166,5 N/m2, 2183,5 N/m2, 2508,5 N/m2, and 2005c N/m2 respectively. After the augmentation, the mean POS in the first, second, third and fourth groups were 3839 N/m2, 2874 N/m2, 2929 N/m2 and 3826 N/m2 respectively. No statistical difference was found between the groups in post-revision POS values (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: There was no significant statistical difference found in POS between the augmentation methods.