{"title":"Comparative study on anterior pelvic plating and pubic ramus screw fixation for straddle fracture: a matched-pair outcome analysis.","authors":"Yong-Cheol Yoon, Joshua A Parry, Cyril Mauffrey","doi":"10.1007/s00264-024-06338-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Straddle fractures involving both the superior and inferior rami often require surgical fixation due to instability. This study compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of pubic ramus screw fixation (PRSF) and anterior pelvic plating (APP) for the treatment of these fractures to identify the superior method.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 70 patients (37 males, 33 females; average age 47.6 years) treated surgically for straddle fractures at two Level 1 trauma centres between May 2017 and August 2022. The patients were divided into two groups, where 26 underwent PRSF and 44 underwent APP. The groups were matched based on preoperative characteristics such as age, sex, body mass index, injury mechanism, and severity. The key variables analysed included operation time, blood transfusion volume, early weight-bearing capability, and complication and reoperation rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After matching, PRSF was associated with a shorter operative time (71.0 min vs. 118.3 min for APP, p < 0.0009) and lower blood transfusion requirements (0 units vs. 1 unit, p < 0.0001). Postoperatively, 61.5% of PRSF patients tolerated early weight-bearing, compared to none in the APP group. However, in two cases, PRSF could not be performed due to severe comminution or anatomical limitations, necessitating conversion to APP. Complication rates were similar between the groups (30.8% for PRSF vs. 27.3% for APP, p = 0.93).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PRSF demonstrated advantages, such as shorter operative time, reduced blood transfusions, and earlier weight-bearing. However, APP remains valuable for complex fracture patterns. Treatment should be individualized based on fracture complexity and patient-specific factors to optimize outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-024-06338-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Straddle fractures involving both the superior and inferior rami often require surgical fixation due to instability. This study compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of pubic ramus screw fixation (PRSF) and anterior pelvic plating (APP) for the treatment of these fractures to identify the superior method.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 70 patients (37 males, 33 females; average age 47.6 years) treated surgically for straddle fractures at two Level 1 trauma centres between May 2017 and August 2022. The patients were divided into two groups, where 26 underwent PRSF and 44 underwent APP. The groups were matched based on preoperative characteristics such as age, sex, body mass index, injury mechanism, and severity. The key variables analysed included operation time, blood transfusion volume, early weight-bearing capability, and complication and reoperation rates.
Results: After matching, PRSF was associated with a shorter operative time (71.0 min vs. 118.3 min for APP, p < 0.0009) and lower blood transfusion requirements (0 units vs. 1 unit, p < 0.0001). Postoperatively, 61.5% of PRSF patients tolerated early weight-bearing, compared to none in the APP group. However, in two cases, PRSF could not be performed due to severe comminution or anatomical limitations, necessitating conversion to APP. Complication rates were similar between the groups (30.8% for PRSF vs. 27.3% for APP, p = 0.93).
Conclusion: PRSF demonstrated advantages, such as shorter operative time, reduced blood transfusions, and earlier weight-bearing. However, APP remains valuable for complex fracture patterns. Treatment should be individualized based on fracture complexity and patient-specific factors to optimize outcomes.