Modified pedicle screw-rod fixation versus anterior pelvic external fixation for the management of anterior pelvic ring fractures: a comparative study

BACKGROUND: Anterior pelvic ring fracture, as high-energy trauma, needs to be effectively treated. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the clinical applications of modified pedicle screw-rod fixation and anterior pelvic external fixation for the treatment of anterior pelvic ring fractur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bi, Chun, Wang, Qiugen, Wu, Jianhong, Zhou, Feng, Zhang, Fei, Liang, Haipeng, Lyu, Fei, Wang, Jiandong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Research Article
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5709973/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29191213
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-017-0688-7
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Anterior pelvic ring fracture, as high-energy trauma, needs to be effectively treated. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the clinical applications of modified pedicle screw-rod fixation and anterior pelvic external fixation for the treatment of anterior pelvic ring fracture. METHODS: Either modified pedicle screw-rod fixation (modified PSRF group, N = 21) or anterior pelvic external fixation (APEF group, N = 22) was performed to 43 patients, with or without fixation of posterior ring. Clinical outcomes were evaluated via Majeed scores. Relevant clinical evaluation indicators including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization duration, and complications were compared between these two groups. RESULTS: The operation time in APEF group was significantly less than that in modified PSRF group (P < 0.0001). No significant difference with respect to intraoperative blood loss and hospitalization duration between the two groups was shown (P = 0.51 and P = 0.33, respectively). Six patients developed surgical site infection in APEF group. Three patients experienced loss of fixation, and two patients experienced loosening of fixator in APEF group. Temporary lateral femoral cutaneous nerve irritation occurred in three patients in modified PSRF group while two patients in APEF group. One patient experienced femoral nerve palsy in modified PSRF group. Fractures of all patients healed well eventually. No statistical difference regarding Majeed evaluation scores was found between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Application of both modified PSRF and APEF could provide similar satisfactory clinical outcomes for anterior pelvic ring fracture. Modified PSRF, a minimally invasive technique with the advantages of internal fixation, could be performed as an alternative method for instable pelvic fractures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Research Registry UIN: researchregistry2776.

Ejemplares similares