Posterior pelvic ring involvement detected with CT taken within a week of admission in acute fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) does not predict failure of conservative treatment: a retrospective cohort study

Prevalence of fracture progression in fragility fractures of the pelvis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) are a growing problem in aging populations. Fracture progression (FP) occasionally occurs during FFP treatment; however, its prevalence remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prevalence of FP among patients with FFP.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. All cohort studies that reported the prevalence of FP in patients with FFP were included. FP was defined as the appearance of additional pelvic fractures after the initial FFP. We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases until April 2024. The pooled prevalence was generated using a random-effects model and presented as a 95 % confidence interval (CI) and prediction interval (PI). We assessed the risk of bias in each study using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

This review included eight studies (925 patients). The pooled prevalence of FP in patients with FFP was 11 % (95 % CI, 5-19 %; 95 % PI, 0-44 %). Subgroup analysis showed that the pooled prevalence of FP in patients with FFP (conservative treatment vs. surgery for initial FFP) was 16 % (95 % CI, 9-24 %) and 2 % (95 % CI, 0-11 %), respectively (test for subgroup difference, P = 0.03). Additional analysis showed that in patients with FP, the pooled prevalence of the fractured site (ipsilateral site, contralateral site, and both sites) was 66 %, 12 %, and 19 %, respectively. The pooled prevalence of fractured bone (pubis, ischium, ilium, and sacrum) was 25 %, 0 %, 15 %, and 68 %, respectively. The risk of bias in the patient sampling method and sufficient data analysis in all included studies was high.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that the prevalence of FP in patients with FFP is relatively high. Clinicians should recognize FP as a possible diagnosis in patients experiencing additional pain after FFP. However, further prospective studies with adequate patient sampling are required to confirm the true prevalence.

Operative versus conservative treatment in pelvic ring fractures with sacral involvement

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the performance in activities of daily living (ADL), level of pain, mortality and rate of complications in patients with a pelvic ring fracture with sacral involvement who were treated conservatively compared to a surgically treated patient collective using percutaneous iliosacral screw fixation.

HYPOTHESIS

Conservative treatment does not result in inferior clinical outcome compared to operative treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of 112 conservatively (n=46) or operatively (n=66) treated patients with an isolated posterior or a combined posterior and anterior pelvic ring fracture was performed. The analysis included: age, sex, mechanism of injury, fracture type according to AO/OTA classification, energy of trauma sustained (no-, low-, high-energy trauma), type of treatment (operative or conservative), complications as well as duration of in-hospital stay. To assess clinical and activity outcome, the visual analog scale for pain (VAS), Barthel Scale, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) scores as well as mortality were assessed. The mean follow-up was 29.3±14.6 months. Furthermore, a geriatric subgroup (n=68, age≥60, low-energy trauma only) was analyzed.

RESULTS

The majority of the patients were female (79%) and suffered from low-energy trauma (n=64, 58%). There were no significant differences in the operative and the conservative groups and subgroups concerning VAS, Barthel scores and ASA scores. The survival analyses showed a significantly lower survival rate in the conservative group (41.8±3.6 months) compared to the operative group (55.9±2 months, p=0.002). Similar findings were encountered in the geriatric subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates equivalent clinical outcome in conservatively and surgically treated patients using a percutaneous iliosacral screw fixation at a mid-term follow-up. However, operatively treated patients showed decreased mortality. This needs to be carefully considered in clinical decision-making but must be further explored using a prospective randomized study approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.