Scholarlink

Background <p>Pelvic ring fractures (PRF) in polytraumatized patients can have a substantial impact on both short- and long-term outcomes. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of combined anterior–posterior (AP) stabilization versus posterior-only (PO) fixation for unstable PRFs in polytraumatized patients.</p> Methods <p>This retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study included adult polytraumatized patients with AO/OTA type B and C pelvic ring injuries treated at a Level I trauma centre between 2010 and 2023. Patients were assigned to one of two groups according to the definitive pelvic stabilization strategy: posterior-only (PO) fixation or combined anterior–posterior (AP) stabilization. The primary outcomes were functional recovery and quality of life, assessed using the Pelvic Outcome Score and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L. Secondary outcomes included complication rates, quality of radiographic fracture reduction, time to mobilization, length of hospital stay, and pain at discharge.</p> Results <p>A total of 158 patients were included in the study; most were male (<i>n</i> = 102, 64.6%), with a median age of 42&#xa0;years. Fifty-eight patients (36.7%) completed the cross-sectional follow-up assessment after a median follow-up of four&#xa0;years. Overall, 31.0% (<i>n</i> = 49) underwent definitive posterior-only (PO) stabilization, whereas 69.0% (<i>n</i> = 109) underwent combined anterior–posterior (AP) stabilization according to the institutional treatment protocol. AO/OTA type C injuries were significantly more common in the AP group. No significant differences were observed between the AP and PO groups with respect to length of hospital stay, complication rates, time to mobilization, functional outcomes, or quality of life. AP stabilization was associated with superior radiographic fracture reduction, particularly of the anterior pelvic ring, but this did not translate into improved long-term outcomes. PO fixation was associated with lower pain scores at follow-up (median VAS, 2 vs. 4; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05), particularly among patients with AO/OTA type B injuries.</p> Conclusions <p>Both AP and PO stabilization, when selected according to the institutional treatment protocol, yielded comparable functional outcomes and complication rates in polytraumatized patients with unstable pelvic ring fractures. The choice of stabilization strategy should be individualized based on pelvic injury morphology, patient physiology, and overall trauma burden within the framework of Early Appropriate Care principles. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and identify factors influencing long-term recovery.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Anterior–posterior versus posterior-only stabilization of unstable pelvic ring injuries in polytraumatized patients: a comparative analysis of clinical, radiological, and long-term functional outcomes

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月20日

查看全文
  • Tim Westenhöfer,
  • Hatem Alabdulrahman,
  • Felix M. Bläsius,
  • Rald V. M. Groven,
  • Till Berk,
  • Frank Hildebrand,
  • Klemens Horst,
  • Eftychios Bolierakis

摘要

Background

Pelvic ring fractures (PRF) in polytraumatized patients can have a substantial impact on both short- and long-term outcomes. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of combined anterior–posterior (AP) stabilization versus posterior-only (PO) fixation for unstable PRFs in polytraumatized patients.

Methods

This retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study included adult polytraumatized patients with AO/OTA type B and C pelvic ring injuries treated at a Level I trauma centre between 2010 and 2023. Patients were assigned to one of two groups according to the definitive pelvic stabilization strategy: posterior-only (PO) fixation or combined anterior–posterior (AP) stabilization. The primary outcomes were functional recovery and quality of life, assessed using the Pelvic Outcome Score and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L. Secondary outcomes included complication rates, quality of radiographic fracture reduction, time to mobilization, length of hospital stay, and pain at discharge.

Results

A total of 158 patients were included in the study; most were male (n = 102, 64.6%), with a median age of 42 years. Fifty-eight patients (36.7%) completed the cross-sectional follow-up assessment after a median follow-up of four years. Overall, 31.0% (n = 49) underwent definitive posterior-only (PO) stabilization, whereas 69.0% (n = 109) underwent combined anterior–posterior (AP) stabilization according to the institutional treatment protocol. AO/OTA type C injuries were significantly more common in the AP group. No significant differences were observed between the AP and PO groups with respect to length of hospital stay, complication rates, time to mobilization, functional outcomes, or quality of life. AP stabilization was associated with superior radiographic fracture reduction, particularly of the anterior pelvic ring, but this did not translate into improved long-term outcomes. PO fixation was associated with lower pain scores at follow-up (median VAS, 2 vs. 4; p < 0.05), particularly among patients with AO/OTA type B injuries.

Conclusions

Both AP and PO stabilization, when selected according to the institutional treatment protocol, yielded comparable functional outcomes and complication rates in polytraumatized patients with unstable pelvic ring fractures. The choice of stabilization strategy should be individualized based on pelvic injury morphology, patient physiology, and overall trauma burden within the framework of Early Appropriate Care principles. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and identify factors influencing long-term recovery.