Salášek M, Pavelka T, Křen J, Weisová D, Jansová M
Klinika ortopedie a traumatologie pohybového ústrojí LF UK a FN Plzeň
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2015;82(1):41-7.
A comparison of radiological and clinical results between dorsal pelvic segment stabilization with a transiliac internal fixator (TIFI) and that with two iliosacral screws (IS).
In this prospective study, both the TIFI and the IS group had 32 patients. The majority of injuries were assessed as type C1.3 because only patients with a high-energy mechanism of injury were included. Radiological results were evaluated according to the Matta scoring system and clinical outcome using the Majeed score and the Pelvic Outcome Score. Categorical data were evaluated by the two-sided Fisher's exact test or Pearson's χ2 test and continuous data by Student's t-test. A test result with p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
In the TIFI group, the mean posterior displacement was 2.2 mm, in the IS group it was 1.9 mm (p=0.58542). The pelvic outcome scores in the TIFI group were: excellent, 28%; good, 12%; fair, 48.0%; and poor, 4 %; in the IS group they were: excellent, 11.1%; good, 22.2%; fair, 66.7%; and poor, 0.0% (p=0.51731). The Majeed scores were as follows: excellent, 56.0%; good, 16.0%; fair, 20.0%; poor 8.0 % for the TIFI group and excellent, 50.0%; good, 27.8%; fair, 11.1%; and poor, 11.1% for the IS group (p=0.70187). Within the total, average Majeed score was 80.64 points in TIFI, 80.67 in IS (p=0.99654). In a sub-analysis of unilateral transforaminal fractures (Pohlemann type II), the average score for TIFI was 82.8 points and only 53.5 points for IS; the differences were statistically significant (p=0.04517). No intraoperative complications were associated with TIFI and one injury to the superior gluteal artery (3.1%) and two iatrogenic neurological injuries with IS (6.3%; p=0.23810). In the TIFI group, the fixator was removed without complications. In the IS group, post-operative wound bleeding following screw removal occurred in three patients (20.0%; p=0.22414), complete extraction of screws and washers was successful only in seven patients (46.7%), washers were left in situ in six patients (40.0 %) and IS removal was not possible in two patients (13.3%). The difference in complications between the groups was highly significant (p=0.00220).
The results of our study are in agreement with those of the relevant studies published recently as well as with the outcomes of transiliac plate fixation reported in the literature. TIFI implantation is preferred in transforaminal and central sacral fractures because, unlike iliosacral screws, it carries a low risk of excessive compression of the sacral foramina and iatrogenic neurological injury. There were no significant differences in clinical and radiological findings between TIFI and IS procedures. Only in unilateral transforaminal fracture the TIFI stabilization had better outcome, as shown by the Majeed score. The IS fixation was associated with a higher rate of complications not only in primary implantation, but also at implant removal.
The TIFI technique is superior to the IS procedure in fixation of unilateral transforaminal fractures and provides a reasonable alternative to the existing types of minimally invasive fixation.
比较经髂内固定器(TIFI)与两枚髂骶螺钉(IS)进行骨盆背侧节段稳定术的影像学和临床结果。
在这项前瞻性研究中,TIFI组和IS组各有32例患者。由于仅纳入了高能量损伤机制的患者,大多数损伤被评估为C1.3型。根据Matta评分系统评估影像学结果,使用Majeed评分和骨盆结果评分评估临床结果。分类数据采用双侧Fisher精确检验或Pearson卡方检验进行评估,连续数据采用Student t检验进行评估。p<0.05的检验结果被认为具有统计学意义。
TIFI组平均后移位为2.2mm,IS组为1.9mm(p = 0.58542)。TIFI组的骨盆结果评分如下:优秀,28%;良好,12%;一般,48.0%;差,4%;IS组的评分如下:优秀,11.1%;良好,22.2%;一般,66.7%;差,0.0%(p = 0.51731)。TIFI组的Majeed评分如下:优秀,56.0%;良好,16.0%;一般,20.0%;差,8.0%;IS组的评分如下:优秀,50.0%;良好,27.8%;一般,11.1%;差,11.1%(p = 0.70187)。总体而言,TIFI组的平均Majeed评分为80.64分,IS组为80.67分(p = 0.99654)。在单侧经椎间孔骨折(Pohlemann II型)的亚分析中,TIFI组的平均评分为82.8分,IS组仅为53.5分;差异具有统计学意义(p = 0.04517)。TIFI未发生术中并发症,IS发生1例臀上动脉损伤(3.1%)和2例医源性神经损伤(6.3%;p = 0.23810)。在TIFI组,固定器顺利取出,无并发症。在IS组,3例患者(20.0%)在取出螺钉后出现术后伤口出血(p = 0.22414),仅7例患者(46.7%)成功完全取出螺钉和垫圈,6例患者(40.0%)垫圈留在原位,2例患者(13.3%)无法取出IS。两组之间并发症的差异具有高度统计学意义(p = 0.00220)。
我们的研究结果与最近发表的相关研究结果以及文献中报道的经髂钢板固定的结果一致。TIFI植入术更适用于经椎间孔和中央骶骨骨折,因为与髂骶螺钉不同,它导致骶孔过度受压和医源性神经损伤的风险较低。TIFI和IS手术在临床和影像学表现上无显著差异。如Majeed评分所示,仅在单侧经椎间孔骨折中,TIFI稳定术的效果更好。IS固定不仅在初次植入时,而且在取出植入物时并发症发生率更高。
在单侧经椎间孔骨折的固定中,TIFI技术优于IS手术,为现有的微创固定类型提供了合理的替代方案。