Safe definitive surgery in unstable pelvic ring injuries - a retrospective cohort study.

IF 1.7 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Carl Vincent Bästlein, Felix Karl-Ludwig Klingebiel, Christian Thomas Hübner, Yannik Kalbas, Olivia Klee, Hans-Christoph Pape, Roman Pfeifer
{"title":"Safe definitive surgery in unstable pelvic ring injuries - a retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Carl Vincent Bästlein, Felix Karl-Ludwig Klingebiel, Christian Thomas Hübner, Yannik Kalbas, Olivia Klee, Hans-Christoph Pape, Roman Pfeifer","doi":"10.1007/s00590-026-04972-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Unstable pelvic ring injuries in polytrauma patients remain among the most lethal injury patterns, largely due to hemorrhage and the physiological burden of staged surgical management. While temporary external fixation is widely used as part of damage-control strategies, early definitive posterior stabilization using percutaneous sacroiliac \"rescue screws\" may provide sufficient mechanical stability while reducing cumulative operative stress. However, comparative clinical data supporting this approach remain scarce. This study investigates operative strategies, timing, and early outcomes in a consecutive cohort of severely injured patients with unstable pelvic ring fractures treated at a Level-1 trauma center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective cohort study including patients aged ≥ 16 years with high-energy unstable pelvic ring injuries (Young and Burgess APC II-III, LC III, combined mechanism, and vertical shear) and an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 16. Demographic data, injury severity, hemodynamic status on admission, operative strategies, number of surgical procedures, and length of hospital stay were analyzed. Outcomes were compared between early definitive posterior fixation and temporary external fixation. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-two patients were included (mean age 43.6 ± 17.3 years; 72.2% male), reflecting a severely injured cohort with a mean ISS of 30.4 ± 10.6; 30.6% presented with hemodynamic shock on admission. Early definitive posterior stabilization without prior temporary external fixation was achieved in n = 63 patients (87.5%). Temporary external fixation was required in n = 9 patients (12.5%), who demonstrated significantly greater injury severity, including higher ISS (41.0 ± 11.3 vs. 28.9 ± 9.8), higher NISS (45.7 ± 12.5 vs. 30.8 ± 10.4), and a higher incidence of shock on admission (44.4 versus. 28.6%). Compared with early definitive fixation, external fixation was associated with a substantially higher operative burden (2.31 ± 0.85 vs. 1.41 ± 0.67 procedures) and prolonged hospitalization (31.9 ± 30.2 vs. 23.4 ± 25.3 days). Radiographic reduction quality did not differ between the groups, with a mean residual sacroiliac joint diastasis of 4.14 ± 1.21 mm in the SDS group and 4.11 ± 0.71 mm in the ExFix group; according to the Matta and Saucedo criteria, all reductions in both groups were graded as anatomic or nearly anatomic. Importantly, early posterior fixation using percutaneous sacroiliac rescue screws was not associated with an increase in early fixation-related complications, even in initially unstable patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In a Level-1 trauma setting, early definitive posterior stabilization using percutaneous sacroiliac rescue screws is feasible and safe in most patients with unstable pelvic ring injuries. Compared with traditional staged management using temporary external fixation, this strategy was associated with a reduced cumulative operative burden and a shorter hospital length of stay without compromising early safety. Given the small number of patients managed with external fixation, these comparative findings should be interpreted with caution. External fixation should be reserved for select patients with extreme injury severity or specific limiting factors for safe definitive surgery. These findings question the routine use of staged damage-control strategies and support early posterior definitive fixation as a component of modern pelvic trauma care.</p>","PeriodicalId":50484,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13601087/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-026-04972-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Unstable pelvic ring injuries in polytrauma patients remain among the most lethal injury patterns, largely due to hemorrhage and the physiological burden of staged surgical management. While temporary external fixation is widely used as part of damage-control strategies, early definitive posterior stabilization using percutaneous sacroiliac "rescue screws" may provide sufficient mechanical stability while reducing cumulative operative stress. However, comparative clinical data supporting this approach remain scarce. This study investigates operative strategies, timing, and early outcomes in a consecutive cohort of severely injured patients with unstable pelvic ring fractures treated at a Level-1 trauma center.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study including patients aged ≥ 16 years with high-energy unstable pelvic ring injuries (Young and Burgess APC II-III, LC III, combined mechanism, and vertical shear) and an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 16. Demographic data, injury severity, hemodynamic status on admission, operative strategies, number of surgical procedures, and length of hospital stay were analyzed. Outcomes were compared between early definitive posterior fixation and temporary external fixation. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

Results: Seventy-two patients were included (mean age 43.6 ± 17.3 years; 72.2% male), reflecting a severely injured cohort with a mean ISS of 30.4 ± 10.6; 30.6% presented with hemodynamic shock on admission. Early definitive posterior stabilization without prior temporary external fixation was achieved in n = 63 patients (87.5%). Temporary external fixation was required in n = 9 patients (12.5%), who demonstrated significantly greater injury severity, including higher ISS (41.0 ± 11.3 vs. 28.9 ± 9.8), higher NISS (45.7 ± 12.5 vs. 30.8 ± 10.4), and a higher incidence of shock on admission (44.4 versus. 28.6%). Compared with early definitive fixation, external fixation was associated with a substantially higher operative burden (2.31 ± 0.85 vs. 1.41 ± 0.67 procedures) and prolonged hospitalization (31.9 ± 30.2 vs. 23.4 ± 25.3 days). Radiographic reduction quality did not differ between the groups, with a mean residual sacroiliac joint diastasis of 4.14 ± 1.21 mm in the SDS group and 4.11 ± 0.71 mm in the ExFix group; according to the Matta and Saucedo criteria, all reductions in both groups were graded as anatomic or nearly anatomic. Importantly, early posterior fixation using percutaneous sacroiliac rescue screws was not associated with an increase in early fixation-related complications, even in initially unstable patients.

Conclusion: In a Level-1 trauma setting, early definitive posterior stabilization using percutaneous sacroiliac rescue screws is feasible and safe in most patients with unstable pelvic ring injuries. Compared with traditional staged management using temporary external fixation, this strategy was associated with a reduced cumulative operative burden and a shorter hospital length of stay without compromising early safety. Given the small number of patients managed with external fixation, these comparative findings should be interpreted with caution. External fixation should be reserved for select patients with extreme injury severity or specific limiting factors for safe definitive surgery. These findings question the routine use of staged damage-control strategies and support early posterior definitive fixation as a component of modern pelvic trauma care.

不稳定骨盆环损伤的安全确定手术-一项回顾性队列研究。
不稳定骨盆环损伤在多发创伤患者中仍然是最致命的损伤类型之一,主要是由于出血和分阶段手术处理的生理负担。虽然临时外固定被广泛用作损伤控制策略的一部分,但使用经皮骶髂“救援螺钉”进行早期明确的后路稳定可以提供足够的机械稳定性,同时减少累积的手术压力。然而,支持这种方法的比较临床数据仍然很少。本研究探讨了在一级创伤中心治疗的不稳定骨盆环骨折严重损伤患者的连续队列手术策略、时机和早期结果。方法:我们进行了一项回顾性队列研究,包括年龄≥16岁的高能量不稳定骨盆环损伤(Young和Burgess APC II-III, LC III,联合机制和垂直剪切)和损伤严重程度评分(ISS) bbb16的患者。分析了人口统计数据、损伤严重程度、入院时血流动力学状况、手术策略、手术次数和住院时间。比较早期明确后路固定和临时外固定的结果。结果:纳入72例患者(平均年龄43.6±17.3岁,男性72.2%),反映了一个严重损伤的队列,平均ISS为30.4±10.6;30.6%入院时出现血流动力学休克。63例患者(87.5%)在没有事先临时外固定的情况下实现了早期明确的后路稳定。n = 9例(12.5%)患者需要临时外固定,他们表现出更严重的损伤,包括更高的ISS(41.0±11.3比28.9±9.8),更高的NISS(45.7±12.5比30.8±10.4),以及更高的入院时休克发生率(44.4比30.8±10.4)。28.6%)。与早期明确固定相比,外固定明显增加手术负担(2.31±0.85对1.41±0.67例)和延长住院时间(31.9±30.2对23.4±25.3天)。x线复位质量各组间无差异,SDS组骶髂关节平均残余移位为4.14±1.21 mm, ExFix组为4.11±0.71 mm;根据Matta和Saucedo标准,两组的所有复位都被分级为解剖性或接近解剖性。重要的是,使用经皮骶髂救援螺钉的早期后路固定与早期固定相关并发症的增加无关,即使在最初不稳定的患者中也是如此。结论:在1级创伤情况下,对大多数不稳定骨盆环损伤患者使用经皮骶髂救援螺钉进行早期决定性后路稳定是可行且安全的。与使用临时外固定的传统分期治疗相比,该策略减少了累计手术负担,缩短了住院时间,且不影响早期安全性。考虑到采用外固定治疗的患者数量较少,这些比较结果应谨慎解释。外固定应保留给有极端损伤严重程度或特定限制因素的患者进行安全的最终手术。这些发现质疑了分期损伤控制策略的常规使用,并支持早期后路明确固定作为现代骨盆创伤护理的组成部分。
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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
265
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology (EJOST) aims to publish high quality Orthopedic scientific work. The objective of our journal is to disseminate meaningful, impactful, clinically relevant work from each and every region of the world, that has the potential to change and or inform clinical practice.
×
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
小红书