ArticleInternational orthopaedics2024
Comparative study on anterior pelvic plating and pubic ramus screw fixation for straddle fracture: a matched-pair outcome analysis.
Article in International orthopaedics, 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.
- Biomechanical stability evaluation of isolated straddle fracture using finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Straddle Fracture Patterns: A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis Based on a New Descriptive Classification Framework.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2026Article
- Review and First Study of a Single-Port Robot in Pelvic Traumatology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- A matched comparison of suprapatellar and infrapatellar approaches in intramedullary nailing for distal tibial fractures: a study of alignment including rotation and mid-term outcomes.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeStraddle fractures involving both the superior and inferior rami often require surgical fixation due to instability. This study compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of pubic ramus screw fixation (PRSF) and anterior pelvic plating (APP) for the treatment of these fractures to identify the superior method.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 70 patients (37 males, 33 females; average age 47.6 years) treated surgically for straddle fractures at two Level 1 trauma centres between May 2017 and August 2022. The patients were divided into two groups, where 26 underwent PRSF and 44 underwent APP. The groups were matched based on preoperative characteristics such as age, sex, body mass index, injury mechanism, and severity. The key variables analysed included operation time, blood transfusion volume, early weight-bearing capability, and complication and reoperation rates.
resultsAfter matching, PRSF was associated with a shorter operative time (71.0 min vs. 118.3 min for APP, p < 0.0009) and lower blood transfusion requirements (0 units vs. 1 unit, p < 0.0001). Postoperatively, 61.5% of PRSF patients tolerated early weight-bearing, compared to none in the APP group. However, in two cases, PRSF could not be performed due to severe comminution or anatomical limitations, necessitating conversion to APP. Complication rates were similar between the groups (30.8% for PRSF vs. 27.3% for APP, p = 0.93).
conclusionPRSF demonstrated advantages, such as shorter operative time, reduced blood transfusions, and earlier weight-bearing. However, APP remains valuable for complex fracture patterns. Treatment should be individualized based on fracture complexity and patient-specific factors to optimize outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39340641What 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.