Journal article
Results of open reduction internal fixation versus percutaneous iliosacral screw fixation for unstable pelvic ring injuries: retrospective study of 36 patients.
- Abou-Khalil S Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
- Steinmetz S Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. sylvain.steinmetz@chuv.ch.
- Mustaki L Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
- Leger B Institute for Research in Rehabilitation, Clinique Romande de Réadaptation Suvacare, Avenue Grand-Champsec 90, 1950, Sion, Switzerland.
- Thein E Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
- Borens O Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
- 2020-03-07
Published in:
- European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie. - 2020
Iliosacral fracture/dislocation
Majeed score
Percutaneous iliosacral screw fixation
Pohlemann score
Unstable pelvic ring injury
English
INTRODUCTION
Surgical stabilization of posterior pelvic ring fractures can be achieved by closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRPF) or by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The aim of the present study is to compare the clinical results of both methods.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Medical records of 36 patients consecutively operated for unstable pelvic ring injuries were retrospectively reviewed. We compared 22 patients treated with CRPF versus 14 patients stabilized by using ORIF between 2007 and 2017. The Majeed and Pohlemann scores were used to evaluate postoperative functional outcomes. Complications like blood loss, infection rate, Neurological injury, the operative time and the length of hospital stay were analyzed.
RESULTS
The median Majeed pelvic score was 87 points for the CRPF technique compared with 69 points for the ORIF technique. The median Pohlemann score, operative time and length of hospitalization were similar between the two groups. The median blood loss for the CRPF technique was 300 ml compared to 500 ml for the ORIF technique. CRPF and ORIF procedure had each one neurological lesion. There was one case of infection in the ORIF group and none in the CRPF group. No measurements except for the blood loss have reached the significance threshold.
CONCLUSION
The CRPF technique shows a clear decrease in blood loss. There was no statistically significant difference in the functional results, infection rate, neurological injury, operative time and hospital stay between both techniques.
Surgical stabilization of posterior pelvic ring fractures can be achieved by closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRPF) or by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The aim of the present study is to compare the clinical results of both methods.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Medical records of 36 patients consecutively operated for unstable pelvic ring injuries were retrospectively reviewed. We compared 22 patients treated with CRPF versus 14 patients stabilized by using ORIF between 2007 and 2017. The Majeed and Pohlemann scores were used to evaluate postoperative functional outcomes. Complications like blood loss, infection rate, Neurological injury, the operative time and the length of hospital stay were analyzed.
RESULTS
The median Majeed pelvic score was 87 points for the CRPF technique compared with 69 points for the ORIF technique. The median Pohlemann score, operative time and length of hospitalization were similar between the two groups. The median blood loss for the CRPF technique was 300 ml compared to 500 ml for the ORIF technique. CRPF and ORIF procedure had each one neurological lesion. There was one case of infection in the ORIF group and none in the CRPF group. No measurements except for the blood loss have reached the significance threshold.
CONCLUSION
The CRPF technique shows a clear decrease in blood loss. There was no statistically significant difference in the functional results, infection rate, neurological injury, operative time and hospital stay between both techniques.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- closed
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1007/s00590-020-02646-x
- PMID 32140838
- Persistent URL
- https://sonar.ch/global/documents/55491
Statistics
Document views: 35
File downloads: