ArticleJOR spine2025
Unilateral Lumbo-Pelvic Fixation for Denis Type I Unilateral Sacral Fracture: A Finite Element Analysis.
Article in JOR spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Denis pattern-dependent biomechanical behavior of posterior trans-iliac plate fixation compared with bilateral triangular osteosynthesis in unilateral sacral fractures: a finite element study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- Finite element analysis of retrograde superior ramus screw of pubis for the treament of pelvic anterior ring fracture.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Unilateral Lumbo-Pelvic Fixation for Denis Type I Unilateral Sacral Fracture: A Finite Element Analysis.JOR spine · 2025Article
- A biomechanical investigation of three fixation methods for unilateral denis type II sacral fractures using finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Case Report: Robot-assisted sacral fracture reduction with patient-specific finite element planning.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Unilateral sacral fractures with posterior ring instability represent a prevalent type of posterior pelvic ring fracture. While lumbo-pelvic fixation is recognized as a highly stable method, the sufficiency of unilateral lumbo-pelvic fixation (ULF) for such fractures remains under debate. Purpose: This study aims to assess the biomechanical stability of ULF compared to traditional bilateral lumbo-pelvic fixation (BLF) and triangular osteosynthesis (TO), incorporating clinical observations, and previous biomechanical data. Methods: We developed a three-dimensional spine-pelvis model to simulate a unilateral sacral fracture with posterior ring instability. The model was used to compare the stability of ULF with BLF and TO, utilizing both newly generated data and ULF models reported in existing literature. Results: Our findings indicate that BLF and TO provide greater stability than ULF, with BLF emerging as the most stable model. While ULF may be insufficient for immediate postoperative weight-bearing, TO also demonstrated potential risks of instability during rotational and lateral bending movements toward the fracture side. Conclusion: Despite its application in clinical settings, ULF may not adequately support early postoperative mobility. This study underscores the need for cautious application of ULF and suggests that enhancements such as additional fixation points may be necessary. The results also highlight the importance of tailored postoperative rehabilitation strategies for patients undergoing TO, especially in managing movements that could destabilize the fracture site.
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.