| Literature DB >> 35028316 |
Hong-Li Deng1, Dong-Yang Li2, Yu-Xuan Cong1, Bin-Fei Zhang1, Jin-Lai Lei1, Hu Wang1, Peng-Fei Wang1, Yan Zhuang1.
Abstract
We investigated the difference between fixation of single and double sacroiliac screws in the treatment of Tile C1 pelvic fractures. The data of 54 patients with Tile C1 pelvic fractures who were admitted to the trauma center of the Red Society Hospital Affiliated to Xi'an Jiaotong University between August 2016 and August 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients with posterior pelvic ring injuries underwent fixation with sacroiliac screws assisted by a percutaneous robotic navigation system. The operative time, amount of intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative follow-up time between the two groups (single sacroiliac and double sacroiliac screw groups) were compared. The Matta and Majeed scores at the last follow-up were compared between the groups to evaluate fracture reduction and functional recovery. Forty-nine patients were followed up for 17.2 (±4.5) months and 16.2 (±3.4) months in the single and double sacroiliac screw groups, respectively. All patients had excellent fracture reduction immediately after surgery, according to the Matta score. All fractures healed without complications. There was no statistically significant difference in preoperative general information, amount intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative anterior ring fixation method, and postoperative follow-up time between the two groups (P > 0.05). The operative time of the single sacroiliac screw group was shorter than that of the double sacroiliac screw group (P < 0.05). At the last follow-up, the Matta score of the double sacroiliac screw group was significantly better than that of the single sacroiliac screw group (P < 0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference in the Majeed functional scores (P > 0.05). For Tile C1 pelvic fractures, double sacroiliac screw fixation of posterior ring injuries can provide a more stable treatment with no statistically significant difference in functional recovery.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35028316 PMCID: PMC8752205 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6426977
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Preoperative traction fracture displacement was not corrected, and the intraoperative reduction was assisted by Starr frame and screw implantation assisted by robotic navigation system. (a) Starr frame-assisted reset. (b) Intraoperative planning of double sacroiliac screws was performed by a robotic navigation system. (c) Intraoperative planning of a single sacroiliac screw was performed with a robotic navigation system.
Figure 2Patient, female, 46, pelvic fractures, front ring plate fixation. The posterior ring was fixed with double sacroiliac screws. (a) Anteroposterior view of pelvic fracture. (b) 3D CT preoperative pelvic fractures for Tile C1.3 type, unilateral vertically unstable pelvic ring. (c) Preoperative CT scan in pelvic posterior ring by the sacrum fracture, vertically displaced. (d) Anteroposterior radiograph of the pelvis immediately after the operation showed satisfactory reduction of the fracture. (e) Inlet radiograph of the pelvis immediately after surgery. (f) Outlet radiograph of the pelvis immediately after surgery. (g) Anteroposterior radiographs of the pelvis 20 months after surgery showed fracture healing. (h) A radiograph of the pelvic inlet 20 months after surgery showed fracture healing. (i) A radiograph at the exit of the pelvis 20 months postoperatively showed healing of the fracture and no loss of reduction at the arrow.
Figure 3Patient, female, 41, with pelvic fractures, front ring plate fixation. The posterior ring was fixed with a single sacroiliac screw. (a) Anteroposterior view of pelvic fracture. (b) 3D CT preoperative pelvic factures for Tile C1.3 type, unilateral vertically unstable pelvic ring. (c) Preoperative CT scan in pelvic ring through the sacrum fracture, vertically displaced. (d) Anteroposterior radiograph of the pelvis immediately after the operation showed satisfactory reduction of the fracture. (e) Inlet radiograph of the pelvis immediately after surgery. (f) Outlet radiograph of the pelvis immediately after surgery. (g) Anteroposterior radiographs of the pelvis 18 months after surgery showed fracture healing. (h) A radiograph of the pelvic inlet 18 months after surgery showed fracture healing. (i) A radiograph at the exit of the pelvis 18 months postoperatively showed healing of the fracture and loss of reduction at the arrow.
Comparison of preoperative general data.
| Indicators | Single screw | Double screws | Statistics |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (male/female) | 17/7 | 21/9 | 0.113 | 0.737 |
| Age (years, | 41.4 ± 11.6 | 44.7 ± 11.8 | 0.172 | 0.340 |
| Injury cause (traffic/fall) | 15/9 | 19/11 | 0.165 | 0.684 |
| Classification (C1.1/C1.2/C1.3) | 2/7/15 | 3/6/21 | 1.531 | 0.148 |
| Side (left/right) | 10/14 | 14/16 | 1.637 | 0.201 |
| Body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2, | 24.1 ± 1.9 | 23.6 ± 1.8 | 0.154 | 0.378 |
| Time from injury to operation (h, | 6.75 ± 1.7d | 6.48 ± 1.2d | 0.173 | 0.462 |
| Complicated internal diseases (yes/no) | 10/14 | 12/18 | 0.694 | 0.155 |
Comparison of operative time, amount of blood loss, and follow-up time.
| Indicators | Single screw | Double screws | Statistics |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operation time (h, | 3.4 ± 1.3 | 4.4 ± 0.8 | 6.014 | 0.01 |
| Blood loss (ml, | 485.0 ± 161.5 | 513.8 ± 203.93 | 0.809 | 0.61 |
| Follow-up time (month, | 17.2 ± 4.5 | 16.2 ± 3.4 | 1.400 | 0.350 |
| Front ring fixation (plate/screw/external fixation) | 15/3/2 | 21/6/2 | 1.300 | 0.256 |
Comparison of Matta scores at the last follow-up.
| Group | Number of cases | Matta score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optimal | Good | Middle | Poor | ||
| Single screw | 20 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 2 |
| Double screws | 29 | 25 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
|
| — | 9.67 | |||
|
| — | 0.012 | |||
Comparison of Majeed scores at the last follow-up.
| Group | Number of cases | Majeed score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optimal | Good | Middle | Poor | ||
| Single screw | 20 | 14 | 5 | 1 | 0 |
| Double screws | 29 | 15 | 13 | 1 | 0 |
|
| — | 2.22 | |||
|
| — | 0.351 | |||