ArticleCureus2024
Percutaneous Ilioilial Fixator Versus Percutaneous Iliosacral Screw in Managing Unstable Sacral Fractures: A Prospective Randomised Controlled Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally invasive circumferential fixation using TIFI and INFIX for unstable pelvic ring injuries: a prospective evaluation of clinical and radiological outcomes.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- 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
- Traumatic lumbosacral instability: part 2-indications and techniques for surgical management.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Review
- Outcome of pelvic ring injuries.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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUnstable sacral fractures with pelvic fractures are challenging to both surgeons and patients, particularly in the immediate post-injury phase and later when definitive fixation is undertaken. Percutaneous iliosacral screw fixation is widely regarded as the gold standard treatment for unstable sacral fractures without spinopelvic dissociation. Closed reduction and percutaneous fixation using iliosacral screws for sacral fractures provide early stabilisation without the need for extensive surgical exposure, thereby mitigating major complications associated with open surgical procedures. A new technique for stabilising unstable sacral fractures is the minimally invasive ilioilial fixator, also called a transiliac internal fixator (TIIF), which has gained more attention for its ability to address challenges associated with sacroiliac screw fixation. The objective of this study is to compare the functional, radiological, and surgical outcomes between the percutaneous iliosacral screw and the ilioilial fixator.
methodsA total of 51 patients with sacral fracture injuries sustained between August 2019 and November 2021 were included in this study, with 25 patients in Group A and 26 patients in Group B. Patient randomization was done using computer-generated randomization facilitated by Random Allocation Software (Mahmood Saghaei, Isfahan, Iran). All patients underwent the chosen intervention within 10 days of the trauma. Patients had follow-up at two weeks, six weeks, and 12 months post-treatment. The results of fixation were evaluated radiologically based on the Matta and Tornetta grading system and clinically using the Majeed pelvic scoring system. Complications were detected in both groups during follow-up visits.
resultsThe study found no statistically significant differences between the two patient groups in terms of final clinical assessment (p=0.79), radiological assessment (p=0.78), or the need for another operation (p=1.0). Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups with respect to complication rates (p=0.63) or the time of union (p=0.14). No differences were noted in terms of intraoperative blood loss (p=0.93) or operative time (p=0.34) but for longer incision length in the ilioilial fixator group (p<0.001) and an increased risk of intraoperative radiation exposure in the iliosacral screw group (p<00.1). DISCUSSION: Although the iliosacral screw is considered a gold standard for unstable sacral fracture, a TIIF is a good alternative with a very satisfactory outcome.
conclusionAlthough the iliosacral screw still remains the gold standard for the management of sacral fractures, the ilioilial fixator emerges as a good alternative with comparable functional and radiological outcomes.
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.