M M Elzohairy1, A M Salama2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of medicine, Zagazig University Hospital, Zagazig, Egypt. Electronic address: elzohairy.me@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of medicine, Zagazig University Hospital, Zagazig, Egypt. Electronic address: Adelsalama@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical stabilization of posterior pelvic ring fractures can be achieved by either open or closed methods. They all provide a comparable biomechanical stability. The aim of the present study is to compare the clinical results of both techniques for treating posterior pelvic ring injuries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy patients operated for unstable posterior pelvic ring disruptions were retrospectively reviewed. We compared 35 patients treated by open reduction internal fixation (ORIF group) versus 35 patients stabilized by using closed reduction and percutaneous iliosacral screw fixation (CRIF group) under fluoroscopic guidance. RESULTS: According to pelvic outcome scoring system of Pohlemann et al., 28 patients out of the ORIF group obtained good or excellent results (20 excellent and 8 good), five fair and two poor. In the CRIF group, 30 patients obtained good or excellent results (25 excellent and 5 good), four fair and one poor (P=0.64). The average intraoperative blood loss in the ORIF group was 500cc with average blood transfusion of 2units (1000cc) compared to blood loss 150cc in the CRIF group, with average blood transfusion of 1unit (500cc) (P=0.002). No intraoperative complications were reported in the ORIF group while operative guide wires were broken in two cases in the CRIF group (P=0.16). There were no neurological complications observed in the ORIF group, but one radiculopathy (L5 root palsy) occurred in the CRIF group (P=0.317). In the ORIF group, three patients had superficial wound infection and one patient had deep infection while in the CRIF group, we noted only one case of deep infection (P=0.083). CONCLUSION: No difference was noticed between ORIF and CRIF. The technical decision is variable according to time of surgery, fracture types, patient general condition, skin condition, presence of ipsilateral fractures of the acetabulum and feasibility of the closed reduction. More studies are needed to identify prognostic factors related to quality of the reduction. We need for creation of decisional algorithm for ORIF versus CRIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.
BACKGROUND: Surgical stabilization of posterior pelvic ring fractures can be achieved by either open or closed methods. They all provide a comparable biomechanical stability. The aim of the present study is to compare the clinical results of both techniques for treating posterior pelvic ring injuries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy patients operated for unstable posterior pelvic ring disruptions were retrospectively reviewed. We compared 35 patients treated by open reduction internal fixation (ORIF group) versus 35 patients stabilized by using closed reduction and percutaneous iliosacral screw fixation (CRIF group) under fluoroscopic guidance. RESULTS: According to pelvic outcome scoring system of Pohlemann et al., 28 patients out of the ORIF group obtained good or excellent results (20 excellent and 8 good), five fair and two poor. In the CRIF group, 30 patients obtained good or excellent results (25 excellent and 5 good), four fair and one poor (P=0.64). The average intraoperative blood loss in the ORIF group was 500cc with average blood transfusion of 2units (1000cc) compared to blood loss 150cc in the CRIF group, with average blood transfusion of 1unit (500cc) (P=0.002). No intraoperative complications were reported in the ORIF group while operative guide wires were broken in two cases in the CRIF group (P=0.16). There were no neurological complications observed in the ORIF group, but one radiculopathy (L5 root palsy) occurred in the CRIF group (P=0.317). In the ORIF group, three patients had superficial wound infection and one patient had deep infection while in the CRIF group, we noted only one case of deep infection (P=0.083). CONCLUSION: No difference was noticed between ORIF and CRIF. The technical decision is variable according to time of surgery, fracture types, patient general condition, skin condition, presence of ipsilateral fractures of the acetabulum and feasibility of the closed reduction. More studies are needed to identify prognostic factors related to quality of the reduction. We need for creation of decisional algorithm for ORIF versus CRIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.