Pedicle screw internal fixation versus subcutaneous anterior pelvic internal fixation in treatment of pelvic anterior ring fractures

Abstract

Objective To compare pedicle screw internal fixation (PSIF) and subcutaneous anterior pelvic internal fixation (APIF) in the treatment of pelvic anterior ring fractures. Methods A retrospective study was conducted of a consecutive series of 46 patients who had undergone surgery for anterior ring pelvic fractures at Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The People’s Hospital of Henan Province from January 2014 to September 2018. Of them, 20 were treated by PSIF and 26 by APIF. In the PSIF group, there were 12 males and 8 females with an age of 47.8±2.4 years, and 6 cases of B1, 9 cases of type B2, 4 cases of type B3 and one case of type C1 by the Tile’s classification; in the APIF group, there were 16 males and 10 females with an age of 49.6±1.2 years, and 9 cases of B1, 8 cases of type B2, 5 cases of type B3, 2 cases of type C1 and 2 cases of type C2 by the Tile’s classification. The 2 groups were compared in terms of surgical or postoperative complications (including iatrogenic nerve injury, infection, implant failure and fracture nonunion), fracture reduction and therapeutic efficacy at the final follow-up. Results There were no significant differences between the 2 groups of patients in their preoperative general data, indicating they were compatible(P>0.05). The 46 patients were followed up for 9 to 18 months (mean, 13.5 months). In the PSIF and APIF groups, the incidences of injury to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve were 5.0%(1/20) and 7.7%(2/26), those of infection 5.0%(1/20) and 3.8%(1/26), and those of skin discomfort 5.0% (1/20) and 7.7%(2/26), respectively. According to the Matta criteria, the fracture reduction at the last follow-up was evaluated as excellent in 7, as good in 11 and as fair in 2 in the PSIF group, giving an excellent and good rate of 90.0%, and as excellent in 9, as good in 13 and as fair in 4 in the APIF group, giving an excellent and good rate of 84.6%. According to the Majeed criteria, the pelvic function at the final follow-up was evaluated as excellent in 10, as good in 7, as fair in 2 and as poor in one in the PSIF group, giving an excellent and good rate of 85.0%, and as excellent in 13, as good in 10, and as fair in 3 in the APIF group, giving an excellent and good rate of 88.5%. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in all the comparisons above (P>0.05). The incidence of femoral nerve parasthesia was 0(0/20) for the PSIF group, significantly lower than that for the APIF groups (3.8%, 1/26) (P<0.05). Conclusion As both PSIF and APIF lead to similar clinical efficacy in the treatment of pelvic anterior ring fracture, either of them can be selected as an appropriate surgical procedure depending on the patient’s situation and surgeon’s experience. Key words: Pelvis; Fractures, bone; Fracture fixation, internal; Bone plates; Surgical procedures, minimally invasive