Stable, anatomical fixation of acetabular fractures gives the best chance of a good outcome. We performed a biomechanical study to compare fracture stability and construct stiffness of three methods of fixation of posterior wall acetabular fractures.

Two-dimensional motion analysis was used to measure fracture fragment displacement and the construct stiffness for each fixation method was calculated from the force / displacement data.

Following 2 cyclic loading protocols of 6000 cycles, to a maximum 1.5kN, the mean fracture displacement was 0.154mm for the rim plate model, 0.326mm for the buttress plate and 0.254mm for the spring plate model. Mean maximum displacement was significantly less for the rim plate fixation than the buttress plate (p=0.015) and spring plate fixation (p=0.02).

The rim plate was the stiffest construct 10962N/mm (SD 3351.8), followed by the spring plate model 5637N/mm (SD 832.6) and the buttress plate model 4882N/mm (SD 387.3).

Where possible a rim plate with inter-fragmentary lag screws should be used for isolated posterior wall fracture fixation as this is the most stable and stiffest construct. However, when this method is not possible, spring plate fixation is a safe and superior alternative to a posterior buttress plate method.

Purposes of Study: To establish what happens, over time, to an ACL graft which is implanted in the skeletally immature knee.

Methods/Results: 5 cases of hamstring ACL reconstruction in prepubertal patients were available from the practices of 2 surgeons in which there were X-ray/MRI images taken over a period of an average of approximately 3 years from the operation. The changes in graft dimensions were measured from these images. No case of growth arrest was seen, nor of soft tissue contracture such as fixed flexion. All patients recovered to their same pre-injury level of activity, including elite level sport in 3 cases. Clinical laxity tests were always satisfactory but the senior authors have noticed that they tighten in time.

The growth of the patients was an average 17cm. The graft diameters did not change despite large changes in graft length (average 145%). Most of the length gain was in the femur.

Conclusion: Much has been written regarding potential harm to the growth plate in these patients but we are not aware of literature on the subject of the fate of the graft itself. Considerable length changes in the grafts were evident. The biological phenomena taking place in the graft are unknown. We have clearly shown an increase in the size of graft tissue due to lengthening but no change in girth. Either the graft stretches or tissue neogenesis occurs, or both. If it simply stretched then the graft would be expected to become narrower, at least in places- it did not. Nevertheless the ‘tightening’ phenomenon reported anecdotally could be due to the graft having to stretch but failing to keep up with growth. As the volume of graft increases so much then at least some neogenesis is highly likely.