Affordable Access

Access to the full text

Modified pedicle screw-rod versus anterior subcutaneous internal pelvic fixation for unstable anterior pelvic ring fracture: a retrospective study and finite element analysis

Authors
  • Pan, Zhi-Hong1
  • Chen, Fan-Cheng2
  • Huang, Jun-Ming2
  • Sun, Cheng-Yi3
  • Ding, Sheng-Long3
  • 1 Zhoujiadu Community Health Service Center, Pudong New Area, Shanghai, 200126, People’s Republic of China , Shanghai (China)
  • 2 Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, People’s Republic of China , Shanghai (China)
  • 3 Capital Medical University, No. 1, Dongjiaomin Lane, DongCheng District, Beijing, 100730, People’s Republic of China , Beijing (China)
Type
Published Article
Journal
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
Publisher
Springer (Biomed Central Ltd.)
Publication Date
Jul 27, 2021
Volume
16
Issue
1
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02618-9
Source
Springer Nature
Keywords
Disciplines
  • Research Article
License
Green

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study compared the stability and clinical outcomes of modified pedicle screw-rod fixation (MPSRF) and anterior subcutaneous internal pelvic fixation (INFIX) for the treatment of anterior pelvic ring fractures using the Tornetta and Matta grading system and finite element analyses (FEA).MethodsIn a retrospective review of a consecutive patient series, 63 patients with Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA)/Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) type B or C pelvic ring fractures were treated by MPRSF (n = 30) or INFIX (n = 33). The main outcome measures were the Majeed score, incidence of complications, and adverse outcomes, and fixation stability as evaluated by finite element analysis.ResultsSixty-three patients were included in the study, with an average age of 34.4 and 36.2 in modified group and conventional group, respectively. Two groups did not differ in terms of the injury severity score, OTA classification, cause of injury, and time to pelvic surgery. However, the MPSRF group had a rate of higher satisfactory results according to the Tornetta and Matta grading system than the conventional group (73.33% vs 63.63%) as well as a higher Majeed score (81.5 ± 10.4 vs 76.3 ± 11.2), and these differences were statistically significant at 6 months post-surgery. FEA showed that MPSRF was stiffer and more stable than INFIX and had a lower risk of implant failure.ConclusionsBoth MPSRF and INFIX provide acceptable biomechanical stability for the treatment of unstable anterior pelvic ring fractures. However, MPSRF provides better fixation stability and a lower risk of implant failure, and can thus lead to better clinical outcomes. Therefore, MPSRF should be more widely applied to anterior pelvic ring fractures

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times