Trial reportArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Minimally invasive stabilisation of anterior pelvic ring injuries through anterior infix versus percutaneous anterior retrograde pubic screw: a prospective comparative cohort study.
Trial report in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManagement of unstable anterior pelvic ring fractures has shifted toward minimally invasive fixation techniques. This prospective randomized cohort study compares anterior subcutaneous internal fixator with percutaneous retrograde pubic ramus screw fixation, evaluating radiological outcomes, functional scores, complications, and peri-operative parameters.
methodsFifty adult patients with unstable anterior pelvic ring injuries (Tile B & C; Young-Burgess lateral compression and vertical shear mechanisms) were enrolled between 2023 and 2025 and randomized into two equal groups: group 1 (internal fixator) and group 2 (retrograde pubic screw). Both groups underwent individualized posterior ring fixation as required. Outcomes assessed included operative time, blood loss, fluoroscopy time, union rate, Matta radiological score at 6 months, Majeed and Pelvic Outcome Scores at 12 months, and post-operative complications.
resultsManagement of anterior pelvic injury showed that retrograde screw fixation demonstrated significantly shorter operative time (32.0 ± 9.2 vs. 50.3 ± 8.4 min, p < 0.001) and less intraoperative blood loss (68.3 ± 16.2 vs. 122.3 ± 31.8 ml, p < 0.001). Radiological outcomes were comparable: excellent Matta score in 68% vs. 64% (p = 0.834). Union time showed no significant difference (14.1 ± 2.4 vs. 15.1 ± 1.5 weeks, p = 0.076). Functional outcomes at 12 months showed no significant difference in Majeed score (p = 0.517), while Pelvic Outcome Score favored the retrograde screw group (32.3 ± 3.5 vs. 30.0 ± 3.3, p = 0.023). Internal fixator had a higher rate of lateral femoral cutaneous nerve injury (28%), while retrograde screw fixation showed fewer reoperations and lower implant removal rate.
conclusionUpon reviewing study cases and relevant literature, both minimally invasive techniques can provide reliable fixation and comparable radiological and functional outcomes for unstable anterior pelvic ring fractures. Retrograde pubic ramus screw fixation offers advantages of reduced blood loss and lower neurovascular complications. Internal fixator offers slightly reduced fluoroscopy exposure but carries a higher risk of lateral femoral cutaneous nerve irritation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.
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.