ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Treatment of unstable pelvic fractures with double INFIX.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigated the clinical efficacy of Double INFIX for the treatment of unstable pelvic fractures.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of 23 patients with unstable pelvic fractures treated using the Double INFIX minimally invasive technique. The cohort included five cases of Tile B1 type, eight cases of B2 type, six cases of B3 type, three cases of C1 type and one case of type C2. Pre- and postoperative evaluations included standardised pelvic serial films and three-dimensional CT scans. Key observational indicators were fracture reduction quality (assessed using Matta's criteria), fracture healing, functional recovery (evaluated with the Majeed function assessment criteria), and incidence of complications.
resultsThe mean follow-up duration was 24.48 ± 1.78 months. The average fracture healing time was 4.00 ± 1.41 months, and the average time for removal of fixation was 7.43 ± 1.75 months. Repeat imaging at 12 months postoperatively using Matta's criteria showed eight cases with excellent results (52.17%), 13 cases with good results (34.78%), three cases with fair results (13.04%), and no cases with poor results. The combined excellent and good rate was 86.96%, whereas the fair rate was 13.04%. The average Majeed hip joint function score at the final follow-up was 95.04 ± 1.72. Postoperative complications included meralgia paresthetica in two cases (8.7%) and sacrococcygeal discomfort in three patients when lying flat.
conclusionDouble INFIX is a minimally invasive treatment technique with adequate clinical efficacy for managing unstable pelvic fractures.
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.