Operative versus conservative treatment in pelvic ring fractures with sacral involvement

Abstract

BackgroundTo 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. HypothesisConservative treatment does not result in inferior clinical outcome compared to operative treatment. Patients and methodsA 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. ResultsThe 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. ConclusionThis 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 evidenceIII.