ArticleBMC surgery2023
Clinical study of modified INFIX combined with sacroiliac joint screws for pelvic instable injuries.
Article in BMC surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of unstable pelvic fractures with double INFIX.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe INFIX technique is becoming one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures for anterior pelvic ring instability injuries. The purpose of this article is to compare the clinical outcomes of modified anterior subcutaneous internal fixation (M-INFIX) with conventional anterior subcutaneous internal fixation (C-INFIX) for anterior pelvic ring instability injuries. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis of 36 cases of unstable pelvic injuries treated operatively at our institution, 20 of which were treated with C-INFIX and 16 with M-INFIX. Data collected included age, gender, ISS score, fracture typing, operative time, operative bleeding, postoperative complications, fracture healing time, Matta score, Majeed score, and follow-up time. Statistical sub-folding of each variable between the two groups was performed.
resultsThere was no statistical difference between the C-INFIX and M-INFIX groups in terms of age, gender, ISS (Injury Severity Score), follow-up time, fracture typing, fracture healing time, and Majeed score (P > 0.05). the M-INFIX had a significantly lower incidence of postoperative complications than the C-INFIX group, especially in the incidence of Lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) injury (P < 0.05). In contrast, the M-INFIX group had statistically higher operative time, intraoperative bleeding, and Matta score than the C-INFIX group (P < 0.05).
conclusionThis study was based on a modified application of the surgical experience with C-INFIX and showed better clinical outcomes in terms of complication rates and quality of repositioning than the conventional surgical approach. These findings indicate that further analytical studies of this study would be valuable.
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.