Demir Ekin Barış, Barça Fatih, Havıtçıoğlu Çağrı, Atilla Halis Atıl, Akdoğan Mutlu
Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Ankara-Türkiye.
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2025 Jan;31(1):75-83. doi: 10.14744/tjtes.2024.32050.
There is no consensus in the literature regarding the optimal treatment method for posterior pelvic ring injuries. This study aims to compare the radiologic and clinical outcomes, as well as complications of spinopelvic fixation (SPF) and iliosacral screw fixation (ISF) in patients with posterior pelvic ring injuries.
This retrospective study analyzed 54 patients (37 females, 17 males; mean age 38.9±18.7 years) with pelvic ring injuries classified as Tile type B and type C involving the posterior pelvic ring. These patients were treated with either SPF or ISF and followed for at least one year at two centers between 2016 and 2023. Of these, 28 patients comprised the SPF group, and 26 patients were in the ISF group. Comparisons were made regarding perioperative data (hemoglobin loss, blood product replacement, hospitalization duration, intensive care unit stay, surgery time, and fluoroscopy duration) and clinical outcomes (limb length discrepancy, Majeed score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and Short Form-36 (SF-36) score). Radiological outcomes were assessed using Matta outcome grading. Complications were also investigated.
Hemoglobin loss (median 2.2 vs. 1 g/dL; p=0.027) and surgery time (67±10.6 vs. 37.7±11.3 minutes; p<0.001) were higher in the SPF group, whereas fluoroscopy duration (median 2 vs. 51.5 seconds; p<0.001) was higher in the ISF group. Other perioperative parameters did not differ between the groups. At a minimum follow-up of one year, clinical scores (Majeed score, VAS, SF-36), limb length discrepancy, and Matta outcome grades were similar between the groups. The SPF group had higher total complication rates (46.4% vs. 19.2%; p=0.034) and infection rates (42.9% vs. 3.8%; p<0.001), while rates of neurological deficits, screw malposition, and other hospitalization complications (e.g., thromboembolic or cardiovascular events, pulmonary complications, sepsis) were not significantly different.
Both spinopelvic fixation and iliosacral screw fixation techniques are similarly effective in terms of clinical and radiological outcomes, with both methods demonstrating a low rate of complications. However, SPF was associated with higher infection rates and greater hemoglobin loss, while ISF required increased fluoroscopy exposure.
关于骨盆后环损伤的最佳治疗方法,文献中尚无共识。本研究旨在比较骨盆后环损伤患者采用脊柱骨盆固定(SPF)和骶髂螺钉固定(ISF)的放射学和临床结果以及并发症。
这项回顾性研究分析了54例骨盆环损伤患者(37例女性,17例男性;平均年龄38.9±18.7岁),其骨盆环损伤分类为Tile B型和C型,累及骨盆后环。这些患者在2016年至2023年期间于两个中心接受了SPF或ISF治疗,并随访至少一年。其中,28例患者组成SPF组,26例患者在ISF组。比较了围手术期数据(血红蛋白丢失、血制品输注、住院时间、重症监护病房停留时间、手术时间和透视时间)和临床结果(肢体长度差异、Majeed评分、视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分和简明健康调查量表(SF-36)评分)。使用Matta结果分级评估放射学结果。还调查了并发症。
SPF组的血红蛋白丢失(中位数2.2 vs. 1 g/dL;p=0.027)和手术时间(67±10.6 vs. 37.7±11.3分钟;p<0.001)较高,而ISF组的透视时间(中位数2 vs. 51.5秒;p<0.001)较高。其他围手术期参数在两组之间无差异。在至少一年的最短随访中,两组之间的临床评分(Majeed评分、VAS、SF-36)、肢体长度差异和Matta结果分级相似。SPF组的总并发症发生率(46.4% vs. 19.2%;p=0.034)和感染率(42.9% vs. 3.8%;p<0.001)较高,而神经功能缺损、螺钉位置不当和其他住院并发症(如血栓栓塞或心血管事件、肺部并发症、败血症)的发生率无显著差异。
脊柱骨盆固定和骶髂螺钉固定技术在临床和放射学结果方面同样有效,两种方法的并发症发生率均较低。然而,SPF与较高的感染率和更多的血红蛋白丢失相关,而ISF需要更多的透视暴露。