Objective The INFIX technique is becoming one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures for anterior pelvic ring instability injuries. The purpose of this article is to compare the clinical outcomes of modified anterior subcutaneous internal fixation (M-INFIX) with conventional anterior subcutaneous internal fixation (C-INFIX) for anterior pelvic ring instability injuries.Patients and Methods: A retrospective analysis of 36 cases of unstable pelvic injuries treated operatively at our institution, 20 of which were treated with conventional INFIX and 16 with modified INFIX. Data collected included age, gender, ISS score, fracture typing, operative time, operative bleeding, postoperative complications, fracture healing time, Matta score, Majeed score, and follow-up time. Statistical sub-folding of each variable between the two groups was performed.Results There was no statistical difference between the C-INFIX and M-INFIX groups in terms of age, gender, ISS score, follow-up time, fracture typing, fracture healing time, and Majeed score (P > 0.05). the M-INFIX had a significantly lower incidence of postoperative complications than the C-INFIX group, especially in the incidence of Lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) injury (P < 0.05). In contrast, the M-INFIX group had statistically higher operative time, intraoperative bleeding, and Matta score than the C-INFIX group (P < 0.05).Conclusion This study was based on a modified application of the surgical experience with conventional INFIX and showed better clinical outcomes in terms of complication rates and quality of repositioning than the conventional surgical approach. These findings indicate that further analytical studies of this study would be valuable.
Background To explore the clinical characteristics of patients with unstable pelvic fractures combined with acetabular fractures and to discuss the treatment strategies for such patients to help guide treatment. Methods We retrospectively assessed 24 patients admitted to our hospital from June 2018 to June 2022 with unstable pelvic fractures combined with acetabular fractures, including 15 male patients and 9 female patients with a mean age of 44.8 years. According to the Tile pelvic fracture classification, 15 cases were type B, and 9 cases were type C. The acetabular fractures were classified using the Letournel–Judet classification. There were 8 transverse fractures, 4 transverse and posterior wall fractures, 3 anterior and posterior hemitransverse fractures, 6 both-column fractures, 2 T-shaped fractures and 1 anterior column fracture. We recorded the cause of the patient's injury and vital signs on admission and assessed the patient's treatment strategy and prognosis. Results All patients completed the surgery successfully, and the follow-up ranged from 6 to 42 months, with a mean of 23 months. The healing time for pelvic fractures ranged from 11 to 21 weeks, with a mean of 14.8 weeks, and the postoperative displacement of the posterior pelvic ring ranged from 1.2 to 9.0 mm, with a mean of 3.5 mm. The final clinical outcome at follow-up was evaluated using the Majeed scale: excellent in 11 cases, good in 10 cases and fair in 3 cases; the excellent rate was 87.5%. The time to healing of the acetabular fracture ranged from 13 to 25 weeks, with a mean of 15.9 weeks, and the postoperative displacement of the acetabular fracture ranged from 0.6 to 5.2 mm, with a mean of 1.9 mm. Hip function was assessed at the final follow-up using a modified Merle D’ Aubigné and Postel scale: there were 9 excellent, 11 good and 4 acceptable scores; an excellent rate of 83.3% was achieved. Conclusion Patients with unstable pelvic fractures combined with acetabular fractures suffer severe trauma and complex mechanisms of injury. Treatment needs to be individualized, taking into account the patient's physiological status, fracture classification and degree of displacement.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.