Detailed Information

Cited 8 time in webofscience Cited 14 time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

Plate versus sacroiliac screw fixation for treating posterior pelvic ring fracture: a Systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors
Kim, Chul-HoKim, Ji Wan
Issue Date
Oct-2020
Publisher
Elsevier Ltd
Keywords
Iliosacral screw; Pelvis fracture; Plate; Posterior pelvic ring disruption
Citation
Injury, v.51, no.10, pp.2259 - 2266
Journal Title
Injury
Volume
51
Number
10
Start Page
2259
End Page
2266
URI
https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/gachon/handle/2020.sw.gachon/78316
DOI
10.1016/j.injury.2020.07.003
ISSN
0020-1383
Abstract
Background: Whether plate fixation or sacroiliac (SI) screw fixation is the better treatment for posterior pelvic ring disruption is controversial. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the two fixation methods. Material and methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for studies comparing plate and SI screw fixations in posterior pelvic ring injuries. Intraoperative variables, postoperative complications, and clinical/radiological scores were compared between the techniques. Results: Eleven studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and nine in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis included 202 patients who underwent plate fixation and 258 patients who underwent SI screw fixation. The incision length and mean blood loss were greater in the plate group than in the SI screw group (standard mean difference (SMD) = 7.29, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.18-11.40; SMD = 5.09, 95% CI: 2.08-8.09, respectively). Patients in the SI screw group had more X-ray exposure than those in the plate group (SMD = -5.96, 95% CI: -7.95–3.97). There were no differences in operation time and intraoperative complications (SMD = -1.42, 95% CI: -3.90-1.05; OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.05–18.60, respectively). The duration of hospital stay was longer in the plate group (SMD = 2.21, 95% CI: 1.74-2.68). There were no differences in postoperative neurological complications, infection rate, and nonunion rate (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 0.20–13.21; OR = 2.10, 95% CI: 0.74–5.94; OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.26–4.87, respectively), but implant loosening was more common in the SI screw group (OR = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.04–0.87). There was no difference in revision surgery (OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.02–2.14). The total excellent rating according to the postoperative Majeed functional and Matta scores was higher in the SI screw group (OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.20–0.91; OR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.08–0.74, respectively). Conclusions: SI screw fixation was superior to plate fixation in the functional and radiological scores, but implant loosening was more common for the treatment posterior pelvic ring injuries. © 2020
Files in This Item
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in
Collections
ETC > 1. Journal Articles

qrcode

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE