Treatment of Unstable Posterior Pelvic Ring Fracture with Pedicle Screw-Rod Fixator Versus Locking Compression Plate: A Comparative Study

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to assess the clinical results of treatment for unstable posterior pelvic fractures using a pedicle screw-rod fixator compared to use of a locking compression plate. MATERIAL AND METHODS A retrospective study was performed between June 2010 and May 2014 and the data were collected from 46 patients with unstable posterior pelvic ring fractures. All patients were treated using either a pedicle screw-rod fixator (study group, 24 patients) or locking compression plate (control group, 22 patients). In these patients, causes of injury included traffic accidents (n=27), fall from height (n=12), and crushing accidents (n=7). The quality of reduction and radiological grading were assessed. Clinical assessments included the operation time, times of X-ray exposures, bleeding volume during operation, incision length, and Majeed postoperative functional evaluation. RESULTS No iatrogenic neurovascular injuries occurred during the operations in these 2 groups. The average follow-up time was 24.5 months. All fractures were healed. The significant differences (P<0.05) between the 2 groups were operation duration, size of incision, and intraoperative bleeding volume. Statistically significant differences in the Majeed postoperative functional evaluation and times of X-ray exposures were not found between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS Similar clinical effects were achieved in treating the posterior pelvic ring fractures using the pedicle screw-rod fixator and the locking compression plate. However, the pedicle screw-rod fixator has the advantages of smaller incision, shorter duration of the operation, and less bleeding volume compared to using the locking compression plate.