ArticleCureus2024
Treatment Outcomes in Vertical Shear Pelvic Fractures: A Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Vertical shear (VS) pelvic ring injuries present a unique challenge due to their inherent vertical and rotational instability and the risk of massive bleeding. VS injuries may result from either bony or ligamentous injury. The goal in the treatment of VS fractures of the pelvis is to achieve and maintain an accurate reduction of the displaced hemipelvis. Aim of the study This study aimed to compare the results of the treatment of VS fractures pelvis by using iliosacral (IS) screws versus lumbopelvic fixation (LPF). Methodology This retrospective study was carried out on 40 patients with VS fracture pelvis injuries at El Hadara University Hospital, Alexandria, Egypt, from January 2020 to December 2020. Twenty of them were treated by an IS screw, and the other 20 were treated by LPF. Then, both groups were followed up for six months with regard to union rate, metal failure, and clinical outcomes. Results The EQ-5D showed a significant improvement in LPF more than the IS screw group in the five items of the score. Moreover, the total EQ-5D index showed a significant increase in the LPF group more than the IS screw group (p < 0.05). The incidence of neurological complication was found in four cases in the IS screw group, while no cases were found in the LPF group. The infection was found in six patients in the IS screw group and only three cases in the LPF group. The malunion was found in two cases in the IS screw group and no cases in the LPF group. The neurological change and the incidence of infection were significantly higher in the IS screw group than in the LPF group (p < 0.05). Conclusion Our results demonstrate reliable maintenance of reduction and acceptable complication rates with a minimally invasive LPF for VS fractured pelvis. The benefits of minimally invasive LPF may be offset by increased elective reoperations for the removal of instrumentation.
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.