Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42199395›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2026

Knowledge gaps in high-energy sacral fracture treatment and management.

Ashraf N El Naga, Marko H Neva, Ahmed Abdelazim Hassan, Gregory D Schroeder, Mohammad El-Sharkawi, Sebastian F Bigdon, Andrei F Joaquim, Klaus Schnake, Richard Bransford, Emre Yilmaz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Ashraf N El NagaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA.
Marko H NevaDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland and Tampere University, Finland.
Ahmed Abdelazim HassanDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Egypt.
Gregory D SchroederDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Mohammad El-SharkawiDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Egypt.
Sebastian F BigdonDepartment of Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery, Inselspital University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
Andrei F JoaquimNeurosurgery Division, Department of Neurology, State University of Campinas, Campinas-Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Klaus SchnakeCenter for Spinal and Scoliosis Surgery, Malteser Waldkrankenhaus St. Marien, Rathsberger Strasse 57, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Richard BransfordHarborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Emre YilmazDepartment of General and Trauma Surgery, BG University Hospital Bergmannsheil Bochum, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-energy sacral fractures (HESF) are often challenging injuries due to the location of the sacrum at the junction of the spine and pelvis, the complex biomechanics of the pelvic ring and the wide spectrum of injury patterns, which make treatment standardization challenging. Despite advances in classification systems - particularly the AOSpine Sacral Injury Classification - significant gaps remain in understanding optimal management. To review and discuss the management and identify knowledge gaps related to HESF. A narrative review of the literature was conducted, focusing on five domains: 1. Relative instability and biomechanics affected in different injury patterns; 2. The significance of concomitant pelvic ring disruption; 3. Reduction goals and options; 4. Optimal instrumentation construct for specific injuries and 5. The role and timing of neural element decompression. The evidence is limited by retrospective studies and heterogeneity. The instability criteria are poorly defined. The role of anterior pelvic fixation remains controversial, with conflicting evidence considering posterior-only versus combined approaches. Reduction goals lack consensus as well. Considering instrumentation techniques, different options were proposed, such as sacroiliac fixation, spinopelvic constructions, and triangular osteosynthesis - with insufficient data for comparison. Finally, evidence for guiding neural decompression is sparse and inconsistent. The management of HESF is extremely based on expert opinion, despite advancements in the classification system. Further prospective, multicenter, and well-designed trials are strongly necessary to define better treatment algorithms and answer the raised knowledge gaps.

Indexed as

Knowledge gapsManagementPelvic injurySacral fracturesSpine traumaTreatment

Identifiers

PMID42199395
PMCPMC13200130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.