Search

Purpose: Posterior pelvic ring lesions are a common finding in patients with pelvic trauma, representing a challenging condition for trauma surgeons. Surgical options are different and there is not yet evidence about the best option. Aim of the study are: (i) to compare Lumbopelvic fixation (LPF) and ilio-sacral screw fixation (ISS) regarding clinical and radiological outcome in unstable posterior pelvic ring injuries, both as whole population and single similar fracture types according to Tile classification (C1vsC1, C2vsC2, C3vsC3); (ii) to analyze clinical outcomes and complications in lumbopelvic fixation group, comparing open and closed reduction technique., Methods: A retrospective multicenter study was performed. Data of the patients were collected. Inclusion criteria were: (i) unstable posterior ring lesions Tile C type, (ii) surgically treated either through ISS (Group A) or LPF (Group B), (iii) minimum follow-up 12 months. Radiological evaluation was made through plain radiographs in Antero-posterior (AP), inlet and outlet views. Last clinical evaluation at 12 months was assessed through Majeed Score, and quality of life (QoL) through SF-12., Results: Group A was represented by 76 patients, and Group B by 42. Group B had better result in Majeed score for non-workers (average 60.1 ± 21.6 vs 65.0 ± 15.6, p = 0.016*). Comparing only C3-type lesions, Group A showed a higher rate of implants breakage (p = 0.032*). Other differences had p > 0.05. Comparing patients underwent open (ORIF) or closed (CRIF) reduction in Group B, CRIF group had shorter hospitalization (47.2 vs 23.4 days, p = 0.020*), an earlier full weight-bearing recovery (4.1 vs 2.6 months, p = 0.035*) and a better Majeed score in workers patients (70.3 vs 82.8, p = 0.019*). Better results for CRIF group were also recorded in quality of life (QoL), both in mental (45.1 vs 55.2, p = 0.040*) and physical outcome (31.9 vs 50.7, p < 0.001*)., Conclusion: ISS and LPF represent both good choices in posterior pelvic ring lesions, however some significant differences were noted. LPF seems to be preferable if the patient did not work before the trauma, due to better clinical outcome. In Tile C3 lesions, LPF have lower breakage rates. If LPF is chosen, CRIF provides better clinical outcomes, QoL and lower hospitalization., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)