Comparison of lumbopelvic fixation and iliosacral screw fixation for the treatment of bilateral sacral fractures

Background Bilateral sacral fractures result in traumatic disruption of the posterior pelvic ring. Treatment for unstable posterior pelvic ring fractures should aim for fracture reduction and rigid fixation to facilitate early mobilization. Iliosacral screw fixation (ISF) and lumbopelvic fixation (LPF) were recommended for the treatment of these injuries. No algorithm or gold standard exists for surgery of these fractures. Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences between ISF and LPF in bilateral sacral fractures regarding intraoperative procedures, complications and postoperative mobilization. The secondary aim was to determine whether demographics influence surgical treatment. Methods Over a 4-year period (2016–2019), 188 consecutive patients with pelvic ring injuries were treated at one academic level 1 trauma center and retrospectively identified. Fractures were classified according to the AO/OTA classification system. Seventy-seven patients were treated with LPF or ISF in combination with internal fixation of pubic rami fractures and could be included in this study. Comparisons were made between demographic and perioperative data. Infection, hematoma and hardware malpositioning were used as complication variables. Mobilization with unrestricted weight bearing was used as outcome variable. Follow-up was at least 6 months postoperatively. Results Operative stabilization of bilateral posterior pelvic ring injuries was performed in 77 patients. Therefore, 29 patients (females 59%) underwent LPF whereas 48 patients (females 83%) had bilateral ISF. The ISF group was older (76 yrs.) compared to the LPF group (62 yrs.) (p = 0.001), but no differences regarding BMI or comorbidities were detected. Time for surgery was reduced for patients who were treated with ISF compared to lumbopelvic fixation (73 min vs. 165 min; respectively, p < 0.001). But this did not result in reduced fluoroscopic time or radiation exposure. Overall complication rate was not different between the groups. Patients with LPF had a greater length of stay (p = 0.008) but were all weight bearing as tolerated when discharged (p < 0.001). Conclusion Bilateral posterior pelvic ring injuries of the sacrum can be sufficiently treated by LPF or ISF. LPF allows immediate weight bearing which may benefit younger patients and patients with an elevated risk for pneumonia or other pulmonary complications. Treatment with ISF reduces operative time, length of stay and postoperative wound infection. Elderly patients may be better suited for treatment with ISF if there is concern that the patient may not tolerate the increased operative time.

Comparison of Lumbopelvic Fixation and Iliosacral Screw Fixation for the Treatment of Bilateral Sacral Fractures

Background: Bilateral sacral fractures result in traumatic disruption of the posterior pelvic ring. Treatment for unstable posterior pelvic ring fractures should aim for fracture reduction and rigid fixation to facilitate early mobilization. Iliosacral screw fixation (ISF) and lumbopelvic fixation (LPF) were recommended for the treatment of these injuries. No algorithm or gold standard exists for surgery of these fractures. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences between ISF and LPF in bilateral sacral fractures regarding intraoperative procedures, complications, and postoperative mobilization. The secondary aim was to determine if demographics influence surgical treatment.Methods: Over a 4-year period (2016-2019) 188 consecutive patients with pelvic ring injuries were treated at one academic level-1 trauma center and retrospectively identified. Fractures were classified according to the AO/OTA classification system. 77 patients were treated with LPF or ISF in combination with internal fixation of pubic rami fractures and could be included in this study. Comparisons were made between demographic and perioperative data. Infection, hematoma, and hardware malpositioning were used as complication variables. Mobilization with unrestricted weight-bearing was used as outcome variable. Follow-up was at least 6 months postoperatively.Results: Operative stabilization of bilateral posterior pelvic ring injuries was performed in 77 patients. Thereof, 29 patients (females 59%) underwent LPF whereas 48 patients (females 83%) had bilateral ISF. The ISF group was older (76 yrs.) compared to the LPF group (62 yrs.) (p=0.001), but no differences regarding BMI or comorbidities were detected. Time for surgery was reduced for patients who were treated with ISF compared to lumbopelvic fixation (165 min vs. 73 min; respectively, p<0.001). But this did not result in reduced fluoroscopic time or radiation exposure. Overall complication rate was not different between the groups. Patients with LPF had a greater length of stay (p=0.008) but were all weight-bearing as tolerated when discharged (p<0.001). Conclusion: Bilateral posterior pelvic ring injuries of the sacrum can be sufficiently treated by LPF or ISF. LPF allows immediate weight-bearing which may benefit younger patients and patients with an elevated risk for pneumonia or other pulmonary complications. Treatment with ISF reduces operative time, length of stay and postoperative wound infection. Elderly patients may be better suited for treatment with ISF if there is concern that the patient may not tolerate the increased operative time.

Biomechanical study of transsacral-transiliac screw fixation versus lumbopelvic fixation and bilateral triangular fixation for “H”- and “U”-type sacrum fractures with traumatic spondylopelvic dissociation: a finite element analysis study

Objective To compare the biomechanical stability of transsacral-transiliac screw fixation and lumbopelvic fixation for “H”- and “U”-type sacrum fractures with traumatic spondylopelvic dissociation. Methods Finite element models of “H”- and “U”-type sacrum fractures with traumatic spondylopelvic dissociation were created in this study. The models mimicked the standing position of a human. Fixation with transsacral-transiliac screw fixation, lumbopelvic fixation, and bilateral triangular fixation were simulated. Biomechanical tests of instability were performed, and the fracture gap displacement, anteflexion, rotation, and stress distribution after fixation were assessed. Results For H-type fractures, the three kinds of fixation ranked by stability were bilateral triangular fixation > lumbopelvic fixation > transsacral-transiliac screw fixation in the vertical and anteflexion directions, bilateral triangular fixation > transsacral-transiliac S1 and S2 screw fixation > lumbopelvic fixation in rotation. The largest displacements in the vertical, anteflexion, and rotational directions were 0.57234 mm, 0.37923 mm, and 0.13076 mm, respectively. For U-type fractures, these kinds of fixation ranked by stability were bilateral triangular fixation > lumbopelvic fixation > transsacral-transiliac S1 and S2 screw fixation > transsacral-transiliac S1 screw fixation in the vertical, anteflexion, and rotational directions. The largest displacements in the vertical, anteflexion, and rotational directions were 0.38296 mm, 0.33976 mm, and 0.05064 mm, respectively. Conclusion All these kinds of fixation met the mechanical criteria for clinical applications. The biomechanical analysis showed better bilateral balance with transsacral-transiliac screw fixation. The maximal displacement for these types of fixation was less than 1 mm. Percutaneous transsacral-transiliac screw fixation can be considered the best option among these kinds of fracture fixation.

An early experience of lumbopelvic fixation techniques at Alexandria University

Background The aim of lumbopelvic fixation is to obtain a solid fusion across the lumbosacral junction. There are many indications for lumbopelvic fixation, namely, spinal deformity in cases requiring long segment fusion, pelvic obliquity, pseudarthrosis at the lumbosacral junction, infection or osteolytic tumors, and pathologic fractures. The classical iliac screws should be contained within the iliac bone but have some disadvantages: excessive soft tissue dissection needed for accurate insertion, screw prominence with patient discomfort, and usually, a side connector is needed to connect the iliac screws to the rest of the construct. Lumbopelvic fixation by insertion of S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screws was recently described to overcome these disadvantages. In this study, the authors present the initial results for the evaluation of lumbopelvic fixation through the insertion of S2AI screws in 19 consecutive patients operated in the neurosurgery department at Alexandria University. Objective The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and complications of lumbopelvic fixation through the use of S2 alar-iliac screws. Methods The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of data collected from the database of patients who underwent lumbopelvic fixation through the insertion of S2AI screws from 2016 to 2019 at a single institution. Results There were 19 patients indicated for lumbopelvic fixation, operated by modern instrumentation systems using lumbar pedicle screws and S2 alar-iliac screws. There were 14 females and 5 males. The mean age at the time of the operation was 38.6 ± 19.4 years with a range from 11 to 65 years. There was a total of 37 S2AI screws, screw diameter was 7mm in all cases regardless of age, and the length of the screws ranged from 50 mm in a young female patient (11 years) to 90 mm in an old male patient (60 years). Two screws were inserted per patient except in one case with congenital scoliosis due to the bad bone quality and the multiple iatrogenic wrong paths. Postoperative VAS score for back pain was greatly improved in all patients after the first 6 months of follow-up from 8 ± 1.5 to 3.5 ± 1.2 (paired t-test = 11.182, P<0.001). All patients had a good spinal range of motion to maintain normal daily activities without any significant restrictions after the first 3 months of follow-up. Immediate postoperative radiological follow-up had revealed 2 cases of posterior pelvic breaches and one case with anterior pelvic breach but without clinical manifestations with no need for revision. Two cases of unilateral screw breakout were observed after the first 6 months of follow-up. Removal of screws after the first 6 months was done in one patient with spondylodiscitis due to the unresolved infection and screw pullout. Conclusion The insertion of S2AI screws is an effective technique for lumbopelvic fixation with a relatively low rate of complications. Pelvic breaches are the commonest complications encountered during the insertion of S2AI screws, although no significant clinical morbidities were reported.

Biomechanical Study of Transsacral-transiliac Screw Fixation Versus Lumbopelvic Fixation and Bilateral Triangular Fixation for “H”- and “U”-type Sacrum Fractures With Traumatic Spondylopelvic Dissociation: a Finite Element Analysis Study

Objective: To compare the biomechanical stability of transsacral-transiliac screw fixation and lumbopelvic fixation for “H”- and “U”-type sacrum fractures with traumatic spondylopelvic dissociation.Methods: Finite element models of “H”- and “U”-type sacrum fractures with traumatic spondylopelvic dissociation were created in this study. The models mimicked the standing position of a human. Fixation with transsacral-transiliac screw fixation, lumbopelvic fixation, and bilateral triangular fixation were simulated. Biomechanical tests of instability were performed, and the fracture gap displacement, anteflexion, rotation, and stress distribution after fixation were assessed.Results: For H-type fractures, the three kinds of fixation ranked by stability were bilateral triangular fixation > lumbopelvic fixation > transsacral-transiliac screw fixation in the vertical and anteflexion directions, bilateral triangular fixation > transsacral-transiliac S1 and S2 screw fixation > lumbopelvic fixation in rotation. The largest displacements in the vertical, anteflexion and rotational directions were 0.57234 mm, 0.37923 mm and 0.13076 mm, respectively. For U-type fractures, these kinds of fixation ranked by stability were bilateral triangular fixation > lumbopelvic fixation > transsacral-transiliac S1 and S2 screw fixation > transsacral-transiliac S1 screw fixation in the vertical, anteflexion and rotational directions. The largest displacements in the vertical, anteflexion and rotational directions were 0.38296 mm, 0.33976 mm and 0.05064 mm, respectively.Conclusion: All these kinds of fixation met the mechanical criteria for clinical applications. The biomechanical analysis showed better bilateral balance with transsacral-transiliac screw fixation. The maximal displacement for these types of fixation was less than 1 mm. Percutaneous transsacral-transiliac screw fixation can be considered the best option among these kinds of fracture fixation.