Percutaneous iliosacral screw and trans-iliac trans-sacral screw with single C-arm fluoroscope intensifier is a safe treatment for pelvic ring injuries

To elucidate the accuracy, efficacy, and safety of percutaneous iliosacral screw (ISS) and trans-iliac trans-sacral screw (TITS) insertion using a single C-arm fluoroscopy intensifier. Additionally, the potential risk factors that might cause mal-positioned screws were identified. Patients with pelvic ring injuries who underwent percutaneous screw fixation in a single medical institute were divided into an ISS group (n = 59) and a TITS group (n = 62) and assessed. The angles deviated from ideal orientation (ADIO) of the implanted screw were measured, and potential risk factors for mal-positioned screws were analyzed. Overall, the reduction quality of the pelvic ring was good or excellent in 70 patients (82.4%) by Matta’s criteria and in 48 patients (56.5%) by Lefaivre’s criteria. ADIO measurements of the ISS and TITS groups via multi-planar computed tomography were 9.16° ± 6.97° and 3.09° ± 2.8° in the axial view, respectively, and 5.92° ± 3.65° and 2.10° ± 2.01° in the coronal view, respectively. Univariate statistical analysis revealed body mass index as the single potential risk factor of mal-positioned screws. With careful preoperative planning and intraoperative preparations, placing ISS and TITS under the guidance of single C-arm fluoroscopy intensifier is a reliable and safe technique. Caution should be exercised when performing this procedure in patients with a high body mass index.

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.

Accuracy of the WSES classification system for pelvic ring disruptions: an international validation study

Background In 2017, a novel classification for pelvic injuries was established by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). We validated its effectiveness using nationwide real-world data. The roles of associated vascular injury and open fracture in this system were also evaluated. Methods Patients with pelvic fractures in the National Trauma Data Bank 2015 dataset were retrospectively studied. First, the mortality rates were compared by WSES classification. Second, independent predictors of mortality were evaluated using a multivariate logistic regression model. Patients with and without associated vascular injuries and the same hemodynamic and pelvic ring stability statuses were compared. Patients with associated vascular injuries were compared to the proportion of nonsurvivors and survivors with unstable pelvic ring injuries. Third, the outcomes were compared between patients with open pelvic fracture and closed pelvic fracture in the mild, moderate and severe WSES classes. Results During the 12-month study period, 44,163 blunt pelvic fracture patients were included. The mortality rates were 1.8%, 3.8% and 10.6% for the mild, moderate and severe WSES classes, respectively (p < 0.001). MLR analysis showed that unstable pelvic ring injury did not significantly affect mortality (p = 0.549), whereas open pelvic fracture and associated vascular injury were independent predictors of mortality (odds of mortality: open pelvic fracture 1.630, p < 0.001; associated vascular injury 1.602, p < 0.001). Patients with associated vascular injuries showed that there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with unstable pelvic ring injuries between survivors and nonsurvivors (37.2% vs. 32.7%, p = 0.323). In all three classes, patients with open pelvic fractures had significantly higher mortality rates and infection rates than patients with closed fractures (mortality rates: minor 3.5% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.009, moderate 11.2% vs. 3.3%, p < 0.001, severe 23.8% vs. 9.8%, p < 0.001; infection rates: minor 3.3% vs. 0.7%, p < 0.001, moderate 6.7% vs. 2.1%, p < 0.001, severe 7.9% vs. 2.8%, p < 0.001). Conclusions Based on this nationwide study, the WSES guideline provides an accurate and reproducible classification of pelvic fractures. It is recommended that open/closed fractures and associated vascular injuries be evaluated as supplements of the WSES classification.