Journals / Caucasian Journal of Science / 2022 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

Evaluation of Graft Harvesting Operations from Anterior and Posterior Iliac Donor Sites by Finite Element Analysis

Pages
35–48
Publication Date
2022-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, since results obtained may be affected by the factors such as the amount of graft harvested, the patient's bone quality, anatomical differences, age and gender, it has been evaluated that the success of the operation may be enhanced by carrying out a patient-specific approach for modeling and analysis steps.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:When the graft donor areas are evaluated in terms of bone reserve and functional aspects, it can be said that the iliac site has outstanding properties.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Numerous studies have been carried out in the literature to reduce these complications, and to increase the success of the operation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, since results obtained may be affected by the factors such as the amount of graft harvested, the patient's bone quality, anatomical differences, age and gender, it has been evaluated that the success of the operation may be enhanced by carrying out a patient-specific approach for modeling and analysis steps.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Iliac · Hemi-pelvis · Finite Element

Abstract

When the graft donor areas are evaluated in terms of bone reserve and functional aspects, it can be said that the iliac site has outstanding properties. However, complications of graft harvesting operations performed from various iliac donor sites have been reported by many researchers. Numerous studies have been carried out in the literature to reduce these complications, and to increase the success of the operation. However, biomechanical comparison of anterior and posterior iliac graft harvesting operations is one of the gaps in the literature. This study aims to assess both biomechanical behavior and bone graft reserve comparison of the two surgical operation alternatives. According to the FEA results of the study, posterior iliac graft harvesting provides 264% more trabecular bone reserve than anterior operation. However, this rate is 132% for cortical bone. When the models are compared, anterior osteotomy model has a 8.6% higher von Mises strain compared to the posterior osteotomy model. Results of the present study has shown that the region with the highest stress value in the cortical bone is the sacroiliac joint for both models. While posterior graft harvesting operation offers advantages in terms of morbidity rate, joint fracture risk and graft reserve, anterior operation can be preferred in terms of operational ease and the sacroiliac joint stability. However, since results obtained may be affected by the factors such as the amount of graft harvested, the patient's bone quality, anatomical differences, age and gender, it has been evaluated that the success of the operation may be enhanced by carrying out a patient-specific approach for modeling and analysis steps.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞENSOY, A. T., KORKMAZ, İ. H., MEDETALİBEYOĞLU, F., KAYMAZ, İ. (2022). Evaluation of Graft Harvesting Operations from Anterior and Posterior Iliac Donor Sites by Finite Element Analysis. Caucasian Journal of Science, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 35–48. https://ajindex.com/articles/746141

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Abdulrazaq, S. S., Issa, S. A., & Abdulrazzak, N. J. (2015). Evaluation of the Trephine Method in Harvesting Bone Graft From the Anterior Iliac Crest for Oral and Maxillofacial Reconstructive Surgery. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 26(8), E744-E746. Ahlmann, E., Patzakis, M., Roidis, N., Shepherd, L., & Holtom, P. (2002). Comparison of anterior and posterior iliac crest bone grafts in terms of harvest-site morbidity and functional outcomes. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume, 84a(5), 716-720.
  2. Bachtar, F., Chen, X., & Hisada, T. (2006). Finite element contact analysis of the hip joint. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, 44(8), 643-651.
  3. Banwart, J. C., Asher, M. A., & Hassanein, R. S. (1995). Iliac crest bone graft harvest donor site morbidity. A statistical evaluation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 20(9), 1055-1060.
  4. Bergmann, G., Bender, A., Dymke, J., Duda, G., & Damm, P. (2016). Standardized Loads Acting in Hip Implants. PLoS One, 11(5), e0155612. Bohme, J., Lingslebe, U., Steinke, H., Werner, M., Slowik, V., Josten, C., & Hammer, N. (2014). The Extent of Ligament Injury and Its Influence on Pelvic Stability Following Type II Anteroposterior Compression Pelvic Injuries-A Computer Study to Gain Insight into Open Book Trauma. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 32(7), 873-879.
  5. Bohme, J., Shim, V., Hoch, A., Mutze, M., Muller, C., & Josten, C. (2012). Clinical implementation of finite element models in pelvic ring surgery for prediction of implant behavior: A case report. Clinical Biomechanics, 27(9), 872-878.
  6. Burstein, F. D., Simms, C., Cohen, S. R., Work, F., & Paschal, M. (2000). Iliac crest bone graft harvesting techniques: a comparison. Plast Reconstr Surg, 105(1), 34-39.
  7. Cai, L., Zhang, Y., Zheng, W., Wang, J., Guo, X., & Feng, Y. (2020). A novel percutaneous crossed screws fixation in treatment of Day type II crescent fracture-dislocation: A finite element analysis. J Orthop Translat, 20, 37-46.
  8. Cansiz, E., Karabulut, D., Dogru, S. C., Akalan, N. E., Temelli, Y., & Arslan, Y. Z. (2019). Gait Analysis of Patients Subjected to the Atrophic Mandible Augmentation with Iliac Bone Graft. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, 2019, 1-9.
  9. Cardiff, P., Karac, A., FitzPatrick, D., Flavin, R., & Ivankovic, A. (2014). Development of mapped stress-field boundary conditions based on a Hill-type muscle model. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering, 30(9), 890-908.
  10. Chan, K., Resnick, D., Pathria, M., & Jacobson, J. (2001).