Clinical Analysis of Single and Double Sacroiliac Screws in the Treatment of Tile C1 Pelvic Fracture

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.

Is It Beneficial to Optimize Vital Signs Before Embolization for Pelvic Fractures? A Dilemma Between Resuscitation and Hemostasis

Purpose Adequate resuscitation and definitive hemostasis are both important in the management of hemorrhage related to pelvic fracture. The goal of this study was to analyze the relationship between the amount of blood transfused before transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) and the clinical outcome later in the disease course. Methods Patients with pelvic fractures who underwent TAE for hemostasis from January 2018 to December 2019 were studied. The characteristics of patients who received blood transfusions of >2 U (1000 mL) and ≤2 U before TAE were compared. The mortality rate, blood transfusion-related complications, and length of stay were compared between these two groups. Results Among the 75 studied patients, 39 (52.0%) received blood transfusions of ≤2 U before TAE, and the other 36 (48.0%) patients received blood transfusions of >2 U before TAE. The incidence rates of systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, and coagulopathy were significantly higher in the >2 U group (97.2% vs 81.1%, P = .027; 50.0% vs 27.0%, P = .045; and 44.4% vs 5.4%, P < .01, respectively). After nonsurvivors were excluded, the >2 U group had a significantly higher proportion (43.8% vs 14.7%, P < .001) of prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (7 days or more) and a longer hospital length of stay (33.8 ± 15.1 vs 21.9 ± 94.0, P < .01) than the ≤2 U group. Pre-TAE blood transfusion >2 U serves as an independent risk factor for prolonged ICU length of stay and increased hospital length of stay. Conclusion Early hemostasis for pelvic fracture-related hemorrhage is suggested to prevent pre-TAE blood transfusion-associated adverse effects of blood transfusion.

Postoperative Reduction Quality May Be the Most Important Factor That Causes Worse Functional Outcomes in Open and Closed Pelvic Fractures

Background Data on the functional outcomes of patients with open pelvic fractures after osteosynthesis are limited, and whether open fracture is a risk factor for worse outcomes, as compared with closed fracture, remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the functional outcomes of patients with open and closed pelvic fractures and evaluate potential factors that might affect outcomes. Methods Overall, 19 consecutive patients with open pelvic fractures and 78 patients with closed pelvic fractures between January 2014 and June 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. All fractures were surgically treated, with a minimal follow-up period of three years. Patients’ demographic profile, associated injuries, management protocol, quality of reduction, and outcomes were recorded and analyzed. Results Patients with open pelvic fractures had higher new injury severity score, higher incidence of diverting colostomy, and longer length of stay. Both radiological and functional evaluations revealed no significant differences between the two groups at 1-year and 3-year evaluations. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified poor radiological outcomes (using Lefaivre criteria) and longer length of stay as risk factors for worse short-term functional outcomes. At 3-year evaluation, fair-to-poor radiological outcomes (using Matta/Tornetta and Lefaivre criteria) and the presence of diverting colostomy were potential risk factors. Conclusions Compared with closed pelvic fracture, open pelvic fracture was not an indicator of worse functional outcomes. Functional outcomes may be comparable between patients with open and closed pelvic fractures at different time points within three years postoperatively. Achieving anatomical reduction in a fracture is crucial, because it might affect patient satisfaction.

Tile Type C Pelvic Fractures: Initial Management, Surgery and Rehabilitation Results of 12 Cases with Literature Review

We report the results of 12 patients followed for Tile type C pelvic fractures treated with percutaneous sacroiliac screwing combined to anterior ring reduction and fixation provided by plate or external fixator during the last 4 years. this study was carried out in the light of literature review to focus on the therapeutic principles of the initial management, the different surgical techniques described for the definitive treatment of bone lesions, the current attitude regarding the rehabilitation of patients and the perspectives under development.

Pelvic Binders in Trauma Patients - Are We Doing it Right?

Introduction: Pelvic fractures from high-energy trauma require immediate stabilisation to avoid significant morbidity and mortality. When applied correctly over the level of the greater trochanters (GT) pelvic binders provide adequate stabilisation of unstable pelvic fractures. The aim of this study was to identify the accuracy of placement of pelvic binders in patients presenting to the local Major Trauma Centre (MTC). Methods: A retrospective study was carried out to assess the level of the pelvic binders in relation to the greater trochanters of the patient-classified as optimal or sub-optimal. Results: An initial review of the computed tomography (CT) trauma series in 28 consecutive patients with pelvic binders revealed that more than 50% of the pelvic binders were placed above the level of the GT, reducing the efficacy of the pelvic binders. A regional educational and training day was held with a focus on pelvic fracture management. Following this, a review was conducted on the placement of the pelvic binder in 100 consecutive patients. This confirmed a significant improvement in the position of the pelvic binder by over 70%. Conclusion: Inaccurately positioned pelvic binders provided suboptimal stabilisation of pelvic fractures. With education and awareness, there has been an improvement in the accuracy of pelvic binder placement in trauma patients. This study has highlighted the need for regular audit of current practice, in combination with regular education and training.

Reply on the comments about Piccione F, Maccarone MC, Cortese AM, Rocca G, Sansubrino U, Piran G, Masiero S. Rehabilitative management of pelvic fractures: a literature-based update. Eur J Transl Myol. 2021 Sep 17;31(3):9933. doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2021.9933

We thank the authors of the Letter of Zehua Li, et al. (2021)1 and the Editor for the opportunity to discuss our work more thoroughly. The comments on the article written by Piccione et al. (2021)2 are certainly interesting and highlight limitations of the previously published article. However, we need to make some clarifications.

Rehabilitative management of pelvic fractures needs to be further optimized

We read with interest the review by Piccione et al. into the rehabilitative management of patients with pelvic fracture (PF). This review adds to our knowledge about the significance and indispensability of early multidisciplinary intervention in PF. From our perspective, however, potential bias might be caused by several unanswered questions. The uncertain methodological process and the unclear definition could misguide the rehabilitation strategies while still in dispute. Therefore, further high-quality studies should be conducted to optimize the multidisciplinary rehabilitation of patients with PF.