Evidence Hub

Internal versus external fixation of the anterior component in unstable fractures of the pelvic ring: pooled results from a systematic review

Wardle B, Eslick GD, Sunner P

European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2016

884 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: Improving reduction of the pelvic ring improves long-term functional outcomes for patients. It has been demonstrated that posterior internal fixation is necessary to adequately control fractures to the posterior ring and there is evidence that supplementing this with fixation of the anterior ring improves stability. It is accepted that internal fixation provides greater stability than external fixation of the anterior ring but long-term differences in radiographic and functional outcomes have not yet been quantified.

METHODS: A search of electronic databases, reference lists and review articles from 1989 to 2015 yielded 18 studies (n = 884) that met our inclusion criteria. We included studies that discussed pelvic ring injuries in adults, reported functional or radiological outcomes or complications by anterior ring intervention and exceeded 14 patients. We excluded biomechanical and cadaver studies.

RESULTS: Internal fixation of the anterior pelvic ring had better functional and radiographic outcomes. Residual displacement of >10 mm was less common with internal fixation (ER 0.12, 95 % CI 0.06-0.24) than external fixation (ER 0.31, 95 % CI 0.11-0.62). Unsatisfactory outcomes also occurred at a lower rate (ER 0.09, 95 % CI 0.03-0.22) compared to external fixation (ER 0.32, 95 % CI 0.18-0.50). Losses of reduction (ER 0.02, 95 % CI 0.01-0.04 versus ER 0.07, 95 % CI 0.02-0.21), malunions (ER 0.03, 95 % CI 0.01-0.08 versus ER 0.07, 95 % CI 0.02-0.21) and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 884 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free