Advertisement

Contemporary less invasive spinal instrumentation for AO C-type posterior pelvic ring injuries

  • Panagiotis KorovessisEmail author
  • Petros Spastris
  • Vasileios Syrimpeis
  • Vasileios Tsekouras
  • Savvas Petrou
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

This study evaluates efficacy and safety of contemporary spinal instrumentation for AO/type C posterior pelvic ring (PPR) injuries.

Methods

Twenty-two consecutive patients, aged 36 ± 17 years, were managed with spinal instrumentation with spinopelvic fixation (SPF) or non-spinopelvic fixation (NSPF) and less invasive surgery. There were 16 vertically unstable sacral fractures and six iliosacral dislocations. Matta score was used for fragment diastasis and Majeed’s score for functional outcome evaluation.

Results

All patients were followed for 61 ± 8 months postoperatively. The operative time was less in NSPF (P < 0.001). SPF was applied in six cases and NSPF in 16 cases. Postoperatively, fragment diastasis was reduced from 16 ± 13 to 2.6 ± 3.8 mm (P < 0.000). There was no statistically significant difference in fracture reduction between SPF and NSPF (P = 0.16). Majeed score was 83 ± 16 postoperatively. There was a significant correlation between Matta score and Majeed score (P = 0.013). There were two cases with spinal instrumentation failure. Low-grade infection occurred in one patient, without hardware failure, that was eradicated after hardware removal. From ten patients with incomplete neurologic impairment on admission, eight showed postoperatively full and two partial recovery without direct sacral decompression. Patients with preoperative neurologic impairment showed lower postoperative Majeed score than those without neurologic impairment (P = 0.027). There was no correlation between neurologic impairment and recovery and type of PPR injury.

Conclusions

SPF and NSPF with contemporary spinal instrumentation for C AO-type PPR injury with less invasive methods are safe and effective techniques that reduce and maintain PPR disruption allowing early mobilization, neurologic recovery and improved Majeed score.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under electronic supplementary material.

Keywords

Less invasive Spinal instrumentation Pelvic ring fractures Spinopelvic fixation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their appreciation to Alkis Korovesis, MSc Dipl. Engineer, for his assistance in statistical analysis of the data.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All authors declare that all procedures performed in these series were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

586_2019_6180_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (139 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 139 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Bederman SS, Hassan JM, Shah KN, Kiester PD, Bhatia NN, Zamorano DP (2013) Fixation techniques for complex traumatic transverse sacral fractures: a systematic review. Spine 38(16):E1028–E1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoffmann E, Lenoir T, Morel E, Levassor N, Rillardon L, Guigui P (2007) Posterior bridging osteosynthesis for traumatic sacroiliac joint dislocation: a report of seven cases. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 18(1):47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kabak S, Halici M, Tuncel M, Avsarogullari L, Baktir A, Basturk M (2003) Functional outcome of open reduction and internal fixation for completely unstable pelvic ring fractures (type C): a report of 40 cases. J Orthop Trauma 17(8):555–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dabezies EJ, Millet CW, Murphy CP, Acker JH, Robicheaux RE, D’Ambrosia RD (1989) Stabilization of sacroiliac joint disruption with threaded compression rods. Clin Orthop Relat Res 246:165–171Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sar C, Kilicoglu O (2003) S1 pediculoiliac screw fixation in instabilities of the sacroiliac complex: biomechanical study and report of two cases. J Orthop Trauma 17(4):262–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Starr AJ, Walter JC, Harris RW, Reinert CM, Jones AL (2002) Percutaneous screw fixation of fractures of the iliac wing and fracture dislocations of the sacro-iliac joint (OTA Types 61-B2.2 and 61-B2.3, or Young-Burgess “lateral compression type II” pelvic fractures). J Orthop Trauma 16(2):116–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abumi K, Saita M, Iida T, Kaneda K (2000) Reduction and fixation of sacroiliac joint dislocation by the combined use of S1 pedicle screws and the Galveston technique. Spine 25(15):1977–1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schildhauer TA, Josten C, Muhr G (1998) Triangular osteosynthesis of vertically unstable sacrum fractures: a new concept allowing early weight-bearing. J Orthop Trauma 12:307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mouhsine E, Wettstein M, Schizas C, Borens O, Blanc CH, Leyvraz PF, Theumann N, Garofalo R (2006) Modified triangular posterior osteosynthesis of unstable sacrum fracture. Eur Spine J 15:857–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hu X, Pei F, Wang G, He J, Kong Q, Tu C (2013) Application triangular osteosynthesis for vertical unstable sacral fractures. Eur Spine J 22:503–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fracture and Dislocation Compendium (2018) Revised AO/OTA classification of pelvic fractures. J Orthop Trauma 32(1S):S71–S75Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Matta MJ, Tornetta P (1996) Internal fixation of unstable pelvic ring injuries. Clin Orthop 329:129–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Majeed SA (1989) Grading the outcome of pelvic fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 71(2):304–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Papakostidis C, Kanakaris NK, Kontakis G, Giannoudis PV (2009) Pelvic ring disruptions: treatment modalities and analysis of outcomes. Int Orthop 33:329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sagi HC (2009) Technical aspects and recommended treatment algorithms in triangular osteosynthesis and spinopelvic fixation for vertical shear transforaminal sacral fractures. J Orthop Trauma 23:354–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindahl J, Mäkinen TJ, Koskinen SK, Söderlund T (2014) Factors associated with outcome of spinopelvic dissociation treated with lumbopelvic fixation. Injury 45(12):1914–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Denis F, Davis S, Comfort T (1988) Sacral fractures: an important problem. Retrospective analysis of 236 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 227:67–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reilly MC, Zinar DM, Matta JM (1996) Neurologic injuries in pelvic ring fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 329:28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sar C, Kilicoglu O (2003) S1 pediculoiliac screw fixation in instabilities of the sacroiliac complex: biomechanical study and report of two cases. J Orthop Trauma 17:262–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Korovessis PG, Magnissalis EA, Deligianni D (2006) Biomechanical evaluation of conventional internal contemporary spinal fixation techniques used for stabilization of complete sacroiliac joint separation: a 3-dimensional unilaterally isolated experimental stiffness study. Spine 31(25):E941–E951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shinohara K, Takigawa T, Tanaka M, Sugimoto Y, Arataki S, Ito Y, Ozaki T (2016) Biomechanical comparison of posterior fixation using spinal instrumentation and conventional posterior plate fixation in unstable vertical sacral fracture. Acta Med Okayama 70:97–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Korovessis P, Stamatakis M, Baikousis A (2000) Posterior stabilization of unstable sacroiliac injuries with the Texas Scottish Rite Hospital spinal instrumentation. Orthopedics 23(4):323–327PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sobhan MR, Abrisham SM, Vakili M, Shirdel S (2016) Spinopelvic fixation of sacroiliac joint fractures and fractures dislocations: a clinical 8 years follow-up study. Arch Bone Jt Surg 4(4):381–386PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Williams KS, Quinnan MS (2016) Percutaneous lumbopelvic fixation for reduction and stabilization of sacral fractures with spinopelvic dissociation patterns. J Orthop Trauma 30:e318–e324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lefaivre KA, Slobogean GP, Ngai JT, Broekhuyse HM, O’Brien PJ (2014) What outcomes are important for patients after pelvic trauma? Subjective responses and psychometric analysis of three published pelvic-specific outcome instruments. J Orthop Trauma 28(1):23–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orthopaedics DepartmentGeneral Hospital of PatrasPatrasGreece
  2. 2.Department of OrthopedicsNicosia General HospitalStrovolosCyprus

Personalised recommendations