ArticleBMC surgery2026
Open reduction and internal fixation versus percutaneous multiple-trajectory screw fixation for unstable pelvic fractures with severe polytrauma: a prospective study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus percutaneous multiple-trajectory screw fixation (PMSF) in the treatment of unstable pelvic fractures with severe polytrauma, and to provide a basis for optimizing surgical strategies.
methodsA prospective study included 26 patients (January-July 2024) divided into ORIF (n = 15) and PMSF (n = 11) groups. ORIF used traditional open plating/screws, while PMSF employed fluoroscopy-guided minimally invasive screws. Primary outcomes: operative time, blood loss, complications (infection, nerve injury), fracture reduction (Matta criteria), functional recovery (Majeed score). Secondary outcomes: hospital stay, preoperative waiting time. Age, ISS, and Tile classification were controlled. SPSS 27.0 analyzed data (significance P < 0.05).
resultsThe PMSF group demonstrated significantly shorter preoperative waiting times (124.09 ± 54.45 h vs. 260.67 ± 170.92 h, P = 0.018), less intraoperative blood loss (68.18 ± 49.96 mL vs. 510.00 ± 264.71 mL, P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (23.36 ± 8.64 days vs. 33.93 ± 12.54 days, P = 0.024) compared with the ORIF group. There were no significant differences in the rates of excellent/good fracture reduction (Matta criteria: PMSF 90.91% vs. ORIF 86.67%, P = 1.000) or 12-month Majeed scores (82.73 ± 7.89 vs. 75.40 ± 13.64, P = 0.125) between the two groups.
conclusionFor patients with unstable pelvic fractures with severe polytrauma, PMSF offers a better minimally invasive treatment option over traditional ORIF in terms of reducing trauma and shortening rehabilitation periods, while achieving comparable fracture reduction quality and functional recovery. Therefore, PMSF can be considered a preferred choice for such cases.
trial registrationThis study was retrospectively registered. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2500110578; Registration date: 16/10/2025;PID:288327).
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.