ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2025
Stabilization of Osteoporotic Pelvis and Acetabular Fractures.
Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The surgical management of osteoporotic pelviacetabular fractures poses distinct challenges due to poor screw purchase, severe comminution of fractures, and the inability to perform prolonged surgeries in patients with significant comorbidities. These fractures necessitate tailored modifications in surgical approaches, implant selection, and techniques based on the patient's overall health, fracture complexity, and bone quality. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar databases to identify relevant articles on the management of osteoporotic pelvi-acetabular fractures. Results: Implant selection plays a pivotal role in addressing the fragility of osteoporotic fractures. Specialized implants, such as locking plates with multidirectional screw holes, along with augmentation using polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) or bone substitutes, enhance screw fixation in compromised bone. Sacral fractures, which are commonly involved, are often managed with percutaneous fixation using long cancellous screws. Minimally invasive long-screw fixation techniques are particularly effective for less displaced acetabular fractures. For displaced acetabular fractures with articular impaction, fracture elevation and stabilization using bone grafts or bone graft substitutes are crucial. When feasible, less invasive surgical techniques are preferred to minimize operative trauma. In some cases, the fixation of acetabular fractures in osteoporotic bone may fail over time, necessitating conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). For fractures with severe comminution, primary THA combined with column reduction and fixation is frequently a safer and more effective approach. Early postoperative mobilization is critical to reduce the risk of complications such as deep vein thrombosis and pressure ulcers. Conclusion: The stabilization of osteoporotic pelvic and acetabular fractures requires a multifaceted approach incorporating advanced surgical techniques, specialized implants, and augmentation methods. Early mobilization and individualized postoperative management are essential for optimizing patient outcomes and minimizing complications.
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.