Combined Anterior-Posterior versus Posterior-Only Fixation of Stress-Positive Minimally Displaced Lateral Compression Type 1 (LC1) Pelvic Ring Injuries.

Objectives: To compare hospital outcomes and late displacement between stress-positive minimally displaced lateral compression type 1 (LC1) pelvic ring injuries treated with combined anterior-posterior versus posterior-only fixation.
Design: Retrospective comparative cohort.
Setting: Urban level-one trauma center.
Patients/participants: LC1 injuries managed operatively.
Intervention: Anterior-posterior versus posterior-only fixation.
Main Outcome Measurements: Physical therapy (PT) clearance, discharge location, hospital length of stay (LOS), inpatient morphine equivalent doses (MED), and fracture displacement at follow-up.
Results: Groups were similar in demographic and injury characteristics (age, high energy mechanism, ASA score, stress displacement, and rami/sacral fracture classifications). Anterior-posterior fixation resulted in longer operative times (median difference (MD): 27.0 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI): 17.0 to 40.0, P < 0.0001) and had a trend of increased estimated blood loss (MD: 10 mL, CI: 0 to 30, P = 0.07). Patients with anterior-posterior fixation required less inpatient MEDs (MD: -180.0, CI: -341.2 to -15.0, P = 0.02), were more likely to clear PT by discharge (100% vs. 70%, proportional difference (PD): 30%, CI: 2.0%-57.2%, P = 0.02), were less likely to discharge to rehabilitation facilities (0% vs. 30%, PD: 30%, CI: 2.0%-57.2%, P = 0.02), and had a trend of less days to clear PT after surgery (MD: -1, CI: -2 to 0, P = 0.09) and decreased LOS (MD: -1, CI: -4 to 1, P = 0.17). Late fracture displacement did not differ between groups.
Conclusion: Anterior-posterior fixation of LC1 injuries was associated with an improved early hospital course-specifically, reduced inpatient opioid use and an increased number of patients who could clear PT and discharge home.
Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Competing Interests: The authors report no conflict of interest.
(Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)