Comparison of lumbopelvic fixation and iliosacral screw fixation for the treatment of bilateral sacral fractures.
Bilateral sacral fracture
Iliosacral screw
Lumbopelvic fixation
Pelvic ring injury
Retrograde medullary superior pubic ramus screw
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
ISSN: 1749-799X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Surg Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265112
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Oct 2021
16 Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
30
06
2021
accepted:
04
10
2021
entrez:
17
10
2021
pubmed:
18
10
2021
medline:
28
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Bilateral sacral fractures result in traumatic disruption of the posterior pelvic ring. Treatment for unstable posterior pelvic ring fractures should aim for fracture reduction and rigid fixation to facilitate early mobilization. Iliosacral screw fixation (ISF) and lumbopelvic fixation (LPF) were recommended for the treatment of these injuries. No algorithm or gold standard exists for surgery of these fractures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences between ISF and LPF in bilateral sacral fractures regarding intraoperative procedures, complications and postoperative mobilization. The secondary aim was to determine whether demographics influence surgical treatment. Over a 4-year period (2016-2019), 188 consecutive patients with pelvic ring injuries were treated at one academic level 1 trauma center and retrospectively identified. Fractures were classified according to the AO/OTA classification system. Seventy-seven patients were treated with LPF or ISF in combination with internal fixation of pubic rami fractures and could be included in this study. Comparisons were made between demographic and perioperative data. Infection, hematoma and hardware malpositioning were used as complication variables. Mobilization with unrestricted weight bearing was used as outcome variable. Follow-up was at least 6 months postoperatively. Operative stabilization of bilateral posterior pelvic ring injuries was performed in 77 patients. Therefore, 29 patients (females 59%) underwent LPF whereas 48 patients (females 83%) had bilateral ISF. The ISF group was older (76 yrs.) compared to the LPF group (62 yrs.) (p = 0.001), but no differences regarding BMI or comorbidities were detected. Time for surgery was reduced for patients who were treated with ISF compared to lumbopelvic fixation (73 min vs. 165 min; respectively, p < 0.001). But this did not result in reduced fluoroscopic time or radiation exposure. Overall complication rate was not different between the groups. Patients with LPF had a greater length of stay (p = 0.008) but were all weight bearing as tolerated when discharged (p < 0.001). Bilateral posterior pelvic ring injuries of the sacrum can be sufficiently treated by LPF or ISF. LPF allows immediate weight bearing which may benefit younger patients and patients with an elevated risk for pneumonia or other pulmonary complications. Treatment with ISF reduces operative time, length of stay and postoperative wound infection. Elderly patients may be better suited for treatment with ISF if there is concern that the patient may not tolerate the increased operative time.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Bilateral sacral fractures result in traumatic disruption of the posterior pelvic ring. Treatment for unstable posterior pelvic ring fractures should aim for fracture reduction and rigid fixation to facilitate early mobilization. Iliosacral screw fixation (ISF) and lumbopelvic fixation (LPF) were recommended for the treatment of these injuries. No algorithm or gold standard exists for surgery of these fractures.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences between ISF and LPF in bilateral sacral fractures regarding intraoperative procedures, complications and postoperative mobilization. The secondary aim was to determine whether demographics influence surgical treatment.
METHODS
METHODS
Over a 4-year period (2016-2019), 188 consecutive patients with pelvic ring injuries were treated at one academic level 1 trauma center and retrospectively identified. Fractures were classified according to the AO/OTA classification system. Seventy-seven patients were treated with LPF or ISF in combination with internal fixation of pubic rami fractures and could be included in this study. Comparisons were made between demographic and perioperative data. Infection, hematoma and hardware malpositioning were used as complication variables. Mobilization with unrestricted weight bearing was used as outcome variable. Follow-up was at least 6 months postoperatively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Operative stabilization of bilateral posterior pelvic ring injuries was performed in 77 patients. Therefore, 29 patients (females 59%) underwent LPF whereas 48 patients (females 83%) had bilateral ISF. The ISF group was older (76 yrs.) compared to the LPF group (62 yrs.) (p = 0.001), but no differences regarding BMI or comorbidities were detected. Time for surgery was reduced for patients who were treated with ISF compared to lumbopelvic fixation (73 min vs. 165 min; respectively, p < 0.001). But this did not result in reduced fluoroscopic time or radiation exposure. Overall complication rate was not different between the groups. Patients with LPF had a greater length of stay (p = 0.008) but were all weight bearing as tolerated when discharged (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Bilateral posterior pelvic ring injuries of the sacrum can be sufficiently treated by LPF or ISF. LPF allows immediate weight bearing which may benefit younger patients and patients with an elevated risk for pneumonia or other pulmonary complications. Treatment with ISF reduces operative time, length of stay and postoperative wound infection. Elderly patients may be better suited for treatment with ISF if there is concern that the patient may not tolerate the increased operative time.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34656147
doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02768-w
pii: 10.1186/s13018-021-02768-w
pmc: PMC8520204
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
604Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 Aug;(329):129-40
pubmed: 8769444
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Feb;89(2):145-54
pubmed: 17322425
J Orthop Trauma. 2016 Aug;30 Suppl 2:S19-20
pubmed: 27441927
J Orthop Trauma. 2001 May;15(4):238-46
pubmed: 11371788
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 May 15;31(11 Suppl):S80-8; discussion S104
pubmed: 16685241
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006 Nov;14(12):656-65
pubmed: 17077338
Chirurgia (Bucur). 2017 Sept-Oct;112(5):524-537
pubmed: 29088552
J Healthc Eng. 2020 Jan 22;2020:5379593
pubmed: 32076495
J Orthop Trauma. 1998 Jun-Jul;12(5):307-14
pubmed: 9671180
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 Apr;103(2):223-227
pubmed: 28017873
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Aug;470(8):2132-41
pubmed: 22318668
Injury. 2015 Aug;46(8):1631-6
pubmed: 26052052
Unfallchirurg. 2007 May;110(5):393-401
pubmed: 17242941
Global Spine J. 2017 Oct;7(7):609-616
pubmed: 28989838
J Orthop Trauma. 2009 May-Jun;23(5):313-9; discussion 319-21
pubmed: 19390356
Eur Spine J. 2012 May;21(5):829-36
pubmed: 22189695
J Orthop Trauma. 2007 Nov-Dec;21(10 Suppl):S1-133
pubmed: 18277234
Injury. 2001 May;32 Suppl 1:SA33-44
pubmed: 11521704
Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2019 Jan-Apr;14(1):45-52
pubmed: 32559267
Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2006 Oct;18(4):330-40
pubmed: 17103131
Eur Spine J. 2006 Jun;15(6):857-63
pubmed: 15843970
J Trauma. 2007 Oct;63(4):884-8
pubmed: 18090021
Biomed J. 2013 Nov-Dec;36(6):289-94
pubmed: 24385071
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Jul;467(7):1833-8
pubmed: 19034594
J Trauma. 1986 Apr;26(4):325-33
pubmed: 3959137
Injury. 2011 Oct;42(10):997-1002
pubmed: 21513936
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016 Apr 19;24:52
pubmed: 27095122
Unfallchirurg. 2013 Nov;116(11):985-90
pubmed: 24233083
J Orthop Trauma. 2004 Mar;18(3):138-43
pubmed: 15091266
Injury. 2005 Nov;36(11):1323-9
pubmed: 15979626
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 May;(422):201-7
pubmed: 15187858
Osteoporos Int. 2012 Dec;23(12):2797-803
pubmed: 22310957
J Orthop Trauma. 2003 Jul;17(6):399-405
pubmed: 12843722
Unfallchirurg. 2013 Nov;116(11):991-9
pubmed: 24233084
Skeletal Radiol. 2014 Apr;43(4):493-8
pubmed: 24453025
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Feb;93(2):237-44
pubmed: 21282765
J Trauma. 1995 Mar;38(3):453-8
pubmed: 7897737
J Orthop Trauma. 2003 Jan;17(1):22-31
pubmed: 12499964
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87 Suppl 2:89-106
pubmed: 16326728
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2002 Jun;15(3):199-205; discussion 205
pubmed: 12131419
J Orthop Trauma. 2006 Jul;20(7):447-57
pubmed: 16891935
World J Orthop. 2015 Sep 18;6(8):629-35
pubmed: 26396939
J Orthop Sci. 1999;4(5):347-52
pubmed: 10542038
J Orthop Trauma. 1999 Feb;13(2):107-13
pubmed: 10052785
Injury. 2020 Aug;51 Suppl 3:S28-S33
pubmed: 32723529
Indian J Orthop. 2019 Jan-Feb;53(1):128-137
pubmed: 30905993
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Nov;474(11):2522-2530
pubmed: 27334321
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988 Jan;70(1):1-12
pubmed: 3276697
J Trauma. 2011 Sep;71(3):E62-70
pubmed: 21399542
J Trauma. 1995 Nov;39(5):838-44; discussion 844-5
pubmed: 7473998
Unfallchirurg. 2013 Nov;116(11):972-8
pubmed: 24233081
J Spine Surg. 2018 Jun;4(2):361-367
pubmed: 30069529