Cargando…

Percutaneous Fixation for Traumatic Symphysis Pubis Disruption—Are the Results Superior Compared to Open Techniques? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Biomechanical Outcomes

Introduction: Open reduction and reconstruction plate and screws fixation (RPSF) is considered the gold standard for the treatment of traumatic symphysis pubis diastasis (SPD). Percutaneous cannulated screw fixation (PCSF) has recently gained popularity as it may reduce operative time and morbidity....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kitridis, Dimitrios, Tsikopoulos, Konstantinos, Givissis, Panagiotis, Chalidis, Byron
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10420190/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37568389
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12154988
_version_ 1785088716394463232
author Kitridis, Dimitrios
Tsikopoulos, Konstantinos
Givissis, Panagiotis
Chalidis, Byron
author_facet Kitridis, Dimitrios
Tsikopoulos, Konstantinos
Givissis, Panagiotis
Chalidis, Byron
author_sort Kitridis, Dimitrios
collection PubMed
description Introduction: Open reduction and reconstruction plate and screws fixation (RPSF) is considered the gold standard for the treatment of traumatic symphysis pubis diastasis (SPD). Percutaneous cannulated screw fixation (PCSF) has recently gained popularity as it may reduce operative time and morbidity. The current systematic review aims to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of PCSF and RPSF in traumatic SPD and analyze the biomechanical effectiveness of PCSF. Material and Methods: The Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched until February 2023. The primary outcomes were the incidence of implant failure and revision surgery and the amount of displacement of symphysis pubis. Secondary outcomes were the intraoperative blood loss, the scar length, the operative time, the wound infection, and the patients’ functional improvement. Results: Six clinical trial studies with a total of 184 patients and nine biomechanical studies were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the incidence of implant failure, the prevalence of revision surgery, and the amount of postoperative loss of reduction (p > 0.05 for all outcomes). The intraoperative blood loss (14.9 ± 4.2 mL for PCSF versus 162.7 ± 47.6 mL for PCSF, p < 0.001) and the incision length (1.7 ± 0.9 mL for PCSF versus 8 ± 1.4 mL for PCSF, p < 0.001) were significantly lower after PCSF. The mean operative time was 37 ± 19.1 min for PCSF and 68.9 ± 13.6 min for RPSF (p < 0.001). The infection rate was less frequent in the PCSF group (3% for PCSF versus 14.3% for RPSF, p = 0.01). One clinical trial reported better functional recovery after PCSF. In all biomechanical studies, the threshold for implant failure was beyond the applied forces corresponding to daily activities. Conclusions: PCSF for traumatic SPD is associated with less operative time, less blood loss, and a lower infection rate when compared to conventional plate techniques without increasing the incidence of postoperative fixation failure and revision surgery. Moreover, PCSF has been proven to be biomechanically sufficient for stabilization. Therefore, it should be considered an efficient and viable alternative for the reconstruction of SPD when closed reduction can be adequately achieved.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10420190
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104201902023-08-12 Percutaneous Fixation for Traumatic Symphysis Pubis Disruption—Are the Results Superior Compared to Open Techniques? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Biomechanical Outcomes Kitridis, Dimitrios Tsikopoulos, Konstantinos Givissis, Panagiotis Chalidis, Byron J Clin Med Systematic Review Introduction: Open reduction and reconstruction plate and screws fixation (RPSF) is considered the gold standard for the treatment of traumatic symphysis pubis diastasis (SPD). Percutaneous cannulated screw fixation (PCSF) has recently gained popularity as it may reduce operative time and morbidity. The current systematic review aims to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of PCSF and RPSF in traumatic SPD and analyze the biomechanical effectiveness of PCSF. Material and Methods: The Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched until February 2023. The primary outcomes were the incidence of implant failure and revision surgery and the amount of displacement of symphysis pubis. Secondary outcomes were the intraoperative blood loss, the scar length, the operative time, the wound infection, and the patients’ functional improvement. Results: Six clinical trial studies with a total of 184 patients and nine biomechanical studies were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the incidence of implant failure, the prevalence of revision surgery, and the amount of postoperative loss of reduction (p > 0.05 for all outcomes). The intraoperative blood loss (14.9 ± 4.2 mL for PCSF versus 162.7 ± 47.6 mL for PCSF, p < 0.001) and the incision length (1.7 ± 0.9 mL for PCSF versus 8 ± 1.4 mL for PCSF, p < 0.001) were significantly lower after PCSF. The mean operative time was 37 ± 19.1 min for PCSF and 68.9 ± 13.6 min for RPSF (p < 0.001). The infection rate was less frequent in the PCSF group (3% for PCSF versus 14.3% for RPSF, p = 0.01). One clinical trial reported better functional recovery after PCSF. In all biomechanical studies, the threshold for implant failure was beyond the applied forces corresponding to daily activities. Conclusions: PCSF for traumatic SPD is associated with less operative time, less blood loss, and a lower infection rate when compared to conventional plate techniques without increasing the incidence of postoperative fixation failure and revision surgery. Moreover, PCSF has been proven to be biomechanically sufficient for stabilization. Therefore, it should be considered an efficient and viable alternative for the reconstruction of SPD when closed reduction can be adequately achieved. MDPI 2023-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC10420190/ /pubmed/37568389 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12154988 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Kitridis, Dimitrios
Tsikopoulos, Konstantinos
Givissis, Panagiotis
Chalidis, Byron
Percutaneous Fixation for Traumatic Symphysis Pubis Disruption—Are the Results Superior Compared to Open Techniques? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Biomechanical Outcomes
title Percutaneous Fixation for Traumatic Symphysis Pubis Disruption—Are the Results Superior Compared to Open Techniques? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Biomechanical Outcomes
title_full Percutaneous Fixation for Traumatic Symphysis Pubis Disruption—Are the Results Superior Compared to Open Techniques? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Biomechanical Outcomes
title_fullStr Percutaneous Fixation for Traumatic Symphysis Pubis Disruption—Are the Results Superior Compared to Open Techniques? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Biomechanical Outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Percutaneous Fixation for Traumatic Symphysis Pubis Disruption—Are the Results Superior Compared to Open Techniques? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Biomechanical Outcomes
title_short Percutaneous Fixation for Traumatic Symphysis Pubis Disruption—Are the Results Superior Compared to Open Techniques? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Biomechanical Outcomes
title_sort percutaneous fixation for traumatic symphysis pubis disruption—are the results superior compared to open techniques? a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and biomechanical outcomes
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10420190/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37568389
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12154988
work_keys_str_mv AT kitridisdimitrios percutaneousfixationfortraumaticsymphysispubisdisruptionaretheresultssuperiorcomparedtoopentechniquesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofclinicalandbiomechanicaloutcomes
AT tsikopouloskonstantinos percutaneousfixationfortraumaticsymphysispubisdisruptionaretheresultssuperiorcomparedtoopentechniquesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofclinicalandbiomechanicaloutcomes
AT givissispanagiotis percutaneousfixationfortraumaticsymphysispubisdisruptionaretheresultssuperiorcomparedtoopentechniquesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofclinicalandbiomechanicaloutcomes
AT chalidisbyron percutaneousfixationfortraumaticsymphysispubisdisruptionaretheresultssuperiorcomparedtoopentechniquesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofclinicalandbiomechanicaloutcomes