Do we need another screw? Sacroiliac screw fixation in open-book pelvic ring injuries (APC type II).

PURPOSE

To compare anterior plate fixation (SP fixation) both alone and in combination with an additional posterior sacroiliac screw (SP+SIS fixation) as a treatment for pelvic ring injuries with widening of the pubic symphysis and disruption to the anterior sacroiliac ligaments.

METHODS

To find studies with pelvic ring injuries (APC II; B2.3d) and SP or SP+SIS fixation, a systematic literature review was conducted by searching four databases. A protocol was published a priori at Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3YHAV). Exclusion criteria included perineal injuries, chronic instability of the symphysis, complete sacroiliac separation, and pediatric patients (age <18 years). Primary outcomes of interest were defined as implant failure, health-related quality of life, and revision rate.

RESULTS

Altogether, 1861 studies were screened, and 40 studies qualified for full-text analysis. In total, 14 studies (two surveys, six biomechanical studies, and six retrospective clinical studies) were included. The surveys revealed that surgeons who had more recently begun practicing were more likely to use posterior fixation (SP+ISS). The biomechanical studies were heterogenous and did not yield a uniform pattern. In clinical studies, 117 patients (45%) received SP fixation, and 142 patients (55%) received SP+SIS fixation. Complications occurred in 31 SP patients (30%) and in five SP+SIS patients (3.5%).

CONCLUSION

A high risk of bias was uncovered, and reporting was found to be incomplete. SP+SIS may have the potential to improve outcomes, but the evidence remains too inconclusive to draw reliable recommendations.