ArticleInternational orthopaedics2026
Minimally invasive internal fixation versus symphyseal screws for unstable pelvic ring fractures.
Article in International orthopaedics, 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
introductionStabilization of the anterior pelvic ring is crucial in the management of unstable pelvic ring fractures. Minimally invasive internal fixation (INFIX) has been proposed as an alternative to conventional symphyseal plate fixation; however, comparative clinical evidence remains limited.
objectiveTo compare INFIX and percutaneous symphyseal screws fixation for unstable pelvic ring fractures in terms of perioperative parameters, complications, radiological outcomes, and functional results.
methodsThis retrospective comparative study included 50 patients with unstable pelvic ring fractures (APC II-III and LC II-III). Patients were allocated into two groups: INFIX fixation (n = 25) and symphyseal screw fixation (n = 25). Outcomes assessed included union time, operative details, blood loss, fluoroscopic exposure, postoperative complications, pain (Visual Analogue Scale), and functional outcome (Majeed score). Patients were followed for up to 12 months.
resultsUnion time was slightly shorter in the screws group (43.7 ± 1.2 vs. 44.9 ± 1.8 days; p = 0.008). Intra-operative blood loss and incision length were significantly higher in the INFIX group (p < 0.001), whereas fluoroscopic exposure was significantly greater in the percutaneous symphyseal screws group (p < 0.001). Postoperative complications were more frequent in the INFIX group (44% vs. 4%; p = 0.001), predominantly implant-related discomfort. Both groups demonstrated significant postoperative pain reduction (p < 0.001), with comparable functional outcomes.
conclusionBoth fixation techniques effectively achieved fracture union and pain relief. percutaneous symphyseal screws fixation was associated with lower perioperative morbidity and fewer complications, while INFIX required less fluoroscopic guidance. Fixation choice should be individualized based on patient and fracture characteristics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42762254What 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.