ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2023
Perioperative outcome of minimally invasive stabilisation of bilateral fragility fractures of the sacrum: a comparative study of bisegmental transsacral stabilisation versus spinopelvic fixation.
Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reported complications after spinopelvic fixation for U-type sacral fractures in older adults: a systematic review with narrative synthesis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Pooled it
- Percutaneous fixation of posterior pelvic ring lesions in the elderly: current evidence and recent advances.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Review
- Preoperative 3D-Planned S1 Corridors Transferred into 2D Fluoroscopy Allow for Safe Intraoperative Large-Diameter Implant Placement: Description of a Novel Sacroiliac Fixation Technique and Proof of Concept in 137 Implantations.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Comparison of minimally invasive versus open spinopelvic fixation for unstable sacral fractures.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Compressive effect and collapse behavior of three different transsacral implants in sacral fragility fractures - a retrospective analysis of 106 cases.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024Article
- [Sacral H-shaped fractures between traumatic, insufficiency and fatigue fractures : Similarities, differences and controversies].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Agreement rate of surgically treated sacral fractures with the recommendations proposed by the sacral AOSpine Injury Score.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePelvic fragility fractures have steadily risen over the past decades. The primary treatment goal is the fastest possible mobilisation. If conservative therapy fails, surgical fixation is a promising approach. This study compares the outcome of bisegmental transsacral stabilisation (BTS) and spinopelvic fixation (SP) as minimally invasive techniques for bilateral fragility fractures of the sacrum (BFFS).
methodsWe performed a prospective, non-randomised, case-controlled study. Patients were included if they remained bedridden due to pain despite conservative treatment. Group assignment depended on sacral anatomy and fracture type. The outcome was estimated by blood loss calculation, cut-seam time, fluoroscopy time, complications, duration of stay at the intensive/intermediate care unit (ICU/IMC), and total inpatient stay. The mobility level at discharge was recorded.
resultsSeventy-three patients were included (SP: 49, BTS: 24). There was no difference in blood loss (BTS: 461 ± 628 mL, SP: 509 ± 354 mL). BTS showed a significantly lower cut-seam time (72 ± 23 min) than SP (94 ± 27 min). Fluoroscopy time did not differ (BTS: 111 ± 61 s vs. 103 ± 45 s). Thirteen percent of BTS and 16% of SP patients required ICU/IMC stay (BTS: 0.6 ± 1.8 days, SP: 0.5 ± 1.5 days) during inpatient stay (BTS: 9 ± 4 days, SP: 8 ± 3 days). Fourteen patients suffered from urinary tract infections (BTS: 8%; SP: 25%). In-patient mortality was low (BTS: 4.2%, SP: 4.1%). At discharge, the BTS group was almost back to the initial mobility level. In SP patients, mobility was significantly lower than before complaints (p = 0.004).
conclusionBoth methods allow early mobilization of BFFS patients. Blood loss can be kept low. Hence, transfusion requirement is correspondingly low. The IMC/ICU and the total inpatient stay are lower than reported in the literature. Both BTS and SP can be recommended as safe and low-complication methods for use in BFFS patients. BTS is superior to SP with respect to surgery duration and level of mobility at discharge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.