Unilateral sacral fragility fractures: a comparative study of unilateral vs. bilateral minimally invasive osteosynthesis.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Martin Naisan, Mohamad Joumah, Marco Brenneis, Marcus Richter, Philipp Drees, Philipp Hartung
{"title":"Unilateral sacral fragility fractures: a comparative study of unilateral vs. bilateral minimally invasive osteosynthesis.","authors":"Martin Naisan, Mohamad Joumah, Marco Brenneis, Marcus Richter, Philipp Drees, Philipp Hartung","doi":"10.1007/s00586-025-09081-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Unilateral sacral fragility fractures are frequently managed with unilateral percutaneous iliosacral screw fixation, which may increase stress on the contralateral sacrum and lead to secondary fractures. This study compared complication rates between unilateral and bilateral screw osteosynthesis and evaluated risk factors for contralateral fracture following unilateral treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included patients with unilateral sacral fragility fractures treated between 2018 and 2024. Patients were categorized into two groups: Group 1 (unilateral fixation) and Group 2 (bilateral fixation). Demographics, fracture morphology, and outcomes at 3 and 12 months postoperatively were assessed. Potential risk factors included comminution, sacral zone involvement, and concomitant anterior pelvic ring fractures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 119 patients were analyzed (44 unilateral, 75 bilateral). The complication rate was significantly higher in the unilateral group (26% vs. 7.1%; p = 0.03). Contralateral fractures occurred more frequently in the unilateral group, particularly in the presence of anterior pelvic ring fractures, although this association was not statistically significant (p = 0.2).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Bilateral screw osteosynthesis significantly reduces complication rates compared to unilateral fixation in the treatment of unilateral sacral fragility fractures. These findings support the routine consideration of bilateral fixation, particularly in patients with concomitant anterior pelvic ring injuries, to minimize the risk of contralateral sacral failure.</p>","PeriodicalId":12323,"journal":{"name":"European Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-09081-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Unilateral sacral fragility fractures are frequently managed with unilateral percutaneous iliosacral screw fixation, which may increase stress on the contralateral sacrum and lead to secondary fractures. This study compared complication rates between unilateral and bilateral screw osteosynthesis and evaluated risk factors for contralateral fracture following unilateral treatment.

Methods: This retrospective study included patients with unilateral sacral fragility fractures treated between 2018 and 2024. Patients were categorized into two groups: Group 1 (unilateral fixation) and Group 2 (bilateral fixation). Demographics, fracture morphology, and outcomes at 3 and 12 months postoperatively were assessed. Potential risk factors included comminution, sacral zone involvement, and concomitant anterior pelvic ring fractures.

Results: A total of 119 patients were analyzed (44 unilateral, 75 bilateral). The complication rate was significantly higher in the unilateral group (26% vs. 7.1%; p = 0.03). Contralateral fractures occurred more frequently in the unilateral group, particularly in the presence of anterior pelvic ring fractures, although this association was not statistically significant (p = 0.2).

Conclusions: Bilateral screw osteosynthesis significantly reduces complication rates compared to unilateral fixation in the treatment of unilateral sacral fragility fractures. These findings support the routine consideration of bilateral fixation, particularly in patients with concomitant anterior pelvic ring injuries, to minimize the risk of contralateral sacral failure.

单侧骶骨脆性骨折:单侧与双侧微创骨融合术的比较研究。
目的:单侧骶骨脆性骨折常采用单侧经皮髂骶螺钉固定,这可能会增加对侧骶骨的压力,导致继发性骨折。本研究比较了单侧和双侧螺钉内固定的并发症发生率,并评估了单侧治疗后对侧骨折的危险因素。方法:回顾性研究纳入2018年至2024年间治疗的单侧骶骨脆性骨折患者。患者分为两组:1组(单侧固定)和2组(双侧固定)。评估术后3个月和12个月的人口统计学、骨折形态和预后。潜在的危险因素包括粉碎性骨折、骶骨区受累和伴随的骨盆前环骨折。结果:共分析119例患者(单侧44例,双侧75例)。单侧组并发症发生率明显高于单侧组(26% vs. 7.1%;p = 0.03)。单侧组对侧骨折发生率更高,尤其是骨盆前环骨折,尽管这种关联没有统计学意义(p = 0.2)。结论:与单侧固定相比,双侧螺钉内固定治疗单侧骶骨脆性骨折可显著降低并发症发生率。这些发现支持双侧固定的常规考虑,特别是合并骨盆前环损伤的患者,以尽量减少对侧骶骨功能衰竭的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Spine Journal
European Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
373
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: "European Spine Journal" is a publication founded in response to the increasing trend toward specialization in spinal surgery and spinal pathology in general. The Journal is devoted to all spine related disciplines, including functional and surgical anatomy of the spine, biomechanics and pathophysiology, diagnostic procedures, and neurology, surgery and outcomes. The aim of "European Spine Journal" is to support the further development of highly innovative spine treatments including but not restricted to surgery and to provide an integrated and balanced view of diagnostic, research and treatment procedures as well as outcomes that will enhance effective collaboration among specialists worldwide. The “European Spine Journal” also participates in education by means of videos, interactive meetings and the endorsement of educative efforts. Official publication of EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信