En-Zhi Yin, Xue-Feng Yuan, Yang-Xing Luo, Peng-Hui Xiang, Li He, Yi-Liu Liao, Cheng-la Yi
{"title":"逆行耻骨支髓内钉与经皮空心螺钉治疗骨盆前环骨折的疗效比较:回顾性队列研究。","authors":"En-Zhi Yin, Xue-Feng Yuan, Yang-Xing Luo, Peng-Hui Xiang, Li He, Yi-Liu Liao, Cheng-la Yi","doi":"10.1007/s11596-025-00044-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical outcomes of retrograde pubic ramus intramedullary nail (RPRIN) and percutaneous cannulated screw (PCS) in the treatment of anterior pelvic ring fractures (APRFs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included 45 patients with APRFs treated between February 2019 and October 2022 in our trauma center. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical method: 20 received RPRIN fixation, and 25 received PCS fixation. Key variables including operation time, fluoroscopic time, blood loss, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Fracture reduction quality was assessed using the Matta score system, and pelvic functional recovery was evaluated using the Majeed score system at the final follow-up. Quantitative variables were compared using the independent sample t test, while categorical variables were analyzed using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The RPRIN group had significantly shorter operation time (36.3 ± 5.6 min vs. 49.5 ± 6.9 min, P < 0.01), fluoroscopic time (32.0 ± 2.8 s vs. 48.4 ± 3.6 s, P < 0.01), and less blood loss (20.4 ± 7.6 mL vs. 34.0 ± 5.7 mL, P < 0.01) than the PCS group. Fracture reduction quality (Matta outcome) and pelvic functional recovery (Majeed outcome) were comparable between the two groups (P > 0.05). No significant complications were reported in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both RPRIN and PCS are effective for treating APRFs. However, RPRIN offers distinct advantages by reducing operation time, fluoroscopic time, and blood loss, making it a more efficient and less invasive option. Further multicenter studies and biomechanical analyses are warranted to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":10820,"journal":{"name":"Current Medical Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Efficacy of Retrograde Pubic Ramus Intramedullary Nails and Percutaneous Cannulated Screws in Treating Anterior Pelvic Ring Fractures: A Retrospective Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"En-Zhi Yin, Xue-Feng Yuan, Yang-Xing Luo, Peng-Hui Xiang, Li He, Yi-Liu Liao, Cheng-la Yi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11596-025-00044-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical outcomes of retrograde pubic ramus intramedullary nail (RPRIN) and percutaneous cannulated screw (PCS) in the treatment of anterior pelvic ring fractures (APRFs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included 45 patients with APRFs treated between February 2019 and October 2022 in our trauma center. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical method: 20 received RPRIN fixation, and 25 received PCS fixation. Key variables including operation time, fluoroscopic time, blood loss, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Fracture reduction quality was assessed using the Matta score system, and pelvic functional recovery was evaluated using the Majeed score system at the final follow-up. Quantitative variables were compared using the independent sample t test, while categorical variables were analyzed using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The RPRIN group had significantly shorter operation time (36.3 ± 5.6 min vs. 49.5 ± 6.9 min, P < 0.01), fluoroscopic time (32.0 ± 2.8 s vs. 48.4 ± 3.6 s, P < 0.01), and less blood loss (20.4 ± 7.6 mL vs. 34.0 ± 5.7 mL, P < 0.01) than the PCS group. Fracture reduction quality (Matta outcome) and pelvic functional recovery (Majeed outcome) were comparable between the two groups (P > 0.05). No significant complications were reported in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both RPRIN and PCS are effective for treating APRFs. However, RPRIN offers distinct advantages by reducing operation time, fluoroscopic time, and blood loss, making it a more efficient and less invasive option. Further multicenter studies and biomechanical analyses are warranted to confirm these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10820,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Medical Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Medical Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-025-00044-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-025-00044-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:比较逆行耻骨支髓内钉(RPRIN)与经皮空心螺钉(PCS)治疗骨盆前环骨折(aprf)的临床疗效。方法:本回顾性队列研究纳入了2019年2月至2022年10月在创伤中心治疗的45例APRFs患者。根据手术方式将患者分为两组:20例采用RPRIN固定,25例采用PCS固定。分析手术时间、透视时间、出血量、术后并发症等关键变量。骨折复位质量采用Matta评分系统评估,骨盆功能恢复在最后随访时采用Majeed评分系统评估。定量变量比较采用独立样本t检验,分类变量分析采用卡方检验和Fisher精确检验。结果:RPRIN组手术时间明显缩短(36.3±5.6 min vs 49.5±6.9 min, P < 0.05)。两组均无明显并发症。结论:RPRIN与PCS治疗APRFs均有效。然而,rprint具有明显的优势,减少了手术时间、透视时间和出血量,使其成为一种更有效、侵入性更小的选择。需要进一步的多中心研究和生物力学分析来证实这些发现。
Comparative Efficacy of Retrograde Pubic Ramus Intramedullary Nails and Percutaneous Cannulated Screws in Treating Anterior Pelvic Ring Fractures: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of retrograde pubic ramus intramedullary nail (RPRIN) and percutaneous cannulated screw (PCS) in the treatment of anterior pelvic ring fractures (APRFs).
Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 45 patients with APRFs treated between February 2019 and October 2022 in our trauma center. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical method: 20 received RPRIN fixation, and 25 received PCS fixation. Key variables including operation time, fluoroscopic time, blood loss, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Fracture reduction quality was assessed using the Matta score system, and pelvic functional recovery was evaluated using the Majeed score system at the final follow-up. Quantitative variables were compared using the independent sample t test, while categorical variables were analyzed using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests.
Results: The RPRIN group had significantly shorter operation time (36.3 ± 5.6 min vs. 49.5 ± 6.9 min, P < 0.01), fluoroscopic time (32.0 ± 2.8 s vs. 48.4 ± 3.6 s, P < 0.01), and less blood loss (20.4 ± 7.6 mL vs. 34.0 ± 5.7 mL, P < 0.01) than the PCS group. Fracture reduction quality (Matta outcome) and pelvic functional recovery (Majeed outcome) were comparable between the two groups (P > 0.05). No significant complications were reported in either group.
Conclusions: Both RPRIN and PCS are effective for treating APRFs. However, RPRIN offers distinct advantages by reducing operation time, fluoroscopic time, and blood loss, making it a more efficient and less invasive option. Further multicenter studies and biomechanical analyses are warranted to confirm these findings.
期刊介绍:
Current Medical Science provides a forum for peer-reviewed papers in the medical sciences, to promote academic exchange between Chinese researchers and doctors and their foreign counterparts. The journal covers the subjects of biomedicine such as physiology, biochemistry, molecular biology, pharmacology, pathology and pathophysiology, etc., and clinical research, such as surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics and otorhinolaryngology etc. The articles appearing in Current Medical Science are mainly in English, with a very small number of its papers in German, to pay tribute to its German founder. This journal is the only medical periodical in Western languages sponsored by an educational institution located in the central part of China.