4.3 Review

Anterior Subcutaneous Internal Pelvic Fixation/INFIX: A Systemic Review

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 S24-S30

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001248

关键词

pelvic ring injury; pelvic fracture; anterior pelvic ring injury; anterior fixation; anterior subcutaneous pelvic fixation; INFIX; complications; outcome scores; outcome parameters; radiographic outcomes; systemic review; heterotopic ossification; infection; symphyseal disruption; ramii fractures; biomechanic stability; pelvic reduction; OTA/AO classification; Young and Burgess classification; external pelvic fixation

资金

  1. Depuy Synthes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on anterior subcutaneous internal pelvic fixation (ASIPF) to identify indications, clinical and radiographic outcomes, and compare these with alternative fixation methods. Methods: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, a systematic search on PubMed and Google Scholar was performed. Articles included were in the English language or English translations and published between 2007 and 2018. Studies included were appraised with narrative data synthesis. Results: Twenty-five articles with 496 patients were included. These included 17 case series, with 3 case reports reporting adverse events. Conclusions: ASIPF and the appropriate posterior fixation resulted in healing of pelvic ring injuries in 99.5% of cases. Indications include unstable pelvic ring injuries with the appropriate posterior fixation. Radiographic parameters and outcome measures were infrequently reported. ASIPF is a valuable tool for reduction and fixation in unstable pelvic ring injuries. Complications include lateral femoral cutaneous nerve irritation (26.3%); heterotopic ossification (36%); infection (3%); and femoral nerve palsy (1%), which is likely related to placing the bar and screws too deep.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据