ReviewCureus2023
Systematic Review of Combined Pelvic Ring and Acetabular Injuries: What Do We Know From the Literature?
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Associated with Functional Outcomes Following Combined Pelvic Ring and Acetabular Fractures: A 2-Year Retrospective Analysis.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2026Article
- Preventing complications during acetabular fracture surgery, a review.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Review
- Combined pelvic ring and acetabular fractures - strategies and sequence of surgery. State of the art.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this review is to examine the literature on combined pelvic ring and acetabular fractures. We hope to further define the classifications, severities (ISS & Mortality), healing, radiographic parameters, and functional outcomes of such injuries to report all potential recommendations based on findings. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and a systematic search on PubMed and Google Scholar was performed. Articles included were in the English Language or through English translation, between the years 1996 and 2022. Articles that had met the inclusion criteria were systematically assessed for the relevance of their content. Eleven articles were identified with a total of 985 patients. All eleven were retrospective case series and the presence of both an injury within the pelvic ring and another injury within the acetabulum, either ipsilateral or contralateral, was the indication of a combination injury. The overall mortality rate averaged over all studies was 7.9% and the Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 22.98. When considering the higher mortality rate seen in pelvic ring injuries compared to the isolated acetabulum, there appears to be survivability beyond reductive means as a reason for reducing and fixing the pelvic ring first. However, accurate reduction of the acetabulum has a greater weight in overall patient recovery compared to the reduction of the pelvic ring and thus surgical emphasis on the anatomic reduction of the acetabulum may be paramount. Despite this good to excellent outcomes can be achieved with careful preoperative planning and surgical execution in patients with fractures of the pelvic ring and acetabulum. Further research as well as uniform radiographic scoring system and outcomes scores should be required to better evaluate and treat these injuries.
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.