ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Reduction quality and hip function after internal fixation of acetabular double column fractures combined with posterior wall fractures with Stoppa approach in comparison to ilioinguinal approach.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the reduction quality and hip function after internal fixation of acetabular double column fractures combined with posterior wall fractures using the Stoppa approach compared to the ilioinguinal approach.
methodsA total of 94 patients admitted to our hospital from October 2016 to October 2021 were included. All patients were diagnosed with acetabular double-column fractures combined with posterior wall fractures. Based on the random number table method, patients were divided into the Stoppa group (treated via the Stoppa approach) and the control group (treated via the conventional ilioinguinal approach), with 47 cases in each group. Postoperative reduction quality and hip function were recorded and compared between the groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors affecting surgical outcomes.
resultsThe Stoppa group demonstrated significantly less intraoperative bleeding, shorter operation time, reduced postoperative drainage volume, shorter drainage tube retention time, and shorter hospital stay compared to the control group (P < 0.05). Postoperatively, the Stoppa group had a significantly lower VAS score (2.90 ± 0.72) and higher Harris scores than those in the control group (5.62 ± 1.18) (P < 0.05). The excellent and good rate of fracture reduction in the Stoppa group was significantly higher (P < 0.05). ROM in hip extension and flexion, internal-external rotation, and Merle-d’Aubigne-Postel scores were also significantly higher in the Stoppa group (P < 0.05). The quality of life score post-operation was higher in the Stoppa group (P < 0.05). Univariate analysis indicated that timing of surgery, fracture type, presence of bone fragments in the joint, cartilage surface injury, surgical approach, and heterotopic ossification significantly influenced surgical outcomes (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that surgery timing (1–2 weeks) and heterotopic ossification were risk factors, while the Stoppa approach was associated with improved outcomes across all measures (P < 0.05).
conclusionCompared to the ilioinguinal approach, the Stoppa approach provides patients with acetabular double column fractures and posterior wall involvement with significantly reduced operation time and blood loss, shortens hospitalization duration, reduces postoperative pain, enhances reduction quality, and improves hip joint function.
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.