Open reduction and internal fixation versus percutaneous multiple-trajectory screw fixation for unstable pelvic fractures with severe polytrauma: a prospective study

Abstract Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus percutaneous multiple-trajectory screw fixation (PMSF) in the treatment of unstable pelvic fractures with severe polytrauma, and to provide a basis for optimizing surgical strategies. Methods A prospective study included 26 patients (January-July 2024) divided into ORIF (n = 15) and PMSF (n = 11) groups. ORIF used traditional open plating/screws, while PMSF employed fluoroscopy-guided minimally invasive screws. Primary outcomes: operative time, blood loss, complications (infection, nerve injury), fracture reduction (Matta criteria), functional recovery (Majeed score). Secondary outcomes: hospital stay, preoperative waiting time. Age, ISS, and Tile classification were controlled. SPSS 27.0 analyzed data (significance P < 0.05). Results The PMSF group demonstrated significantly shorter preoperative waiting times (124.09 ± 54.45 h vs. 260.67 ± 170.92 h, P = 0.018), less intraoperative blood loss (68.18 ± 49.96 mL vs. 510.00 ± 264.71 mL, P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (23.36 ± 8.64 days vs. 33.93 ± 12.54 days, P = 0.024) compared with the ORIF group. There were no significant differences in the rates of excellent/good fracture reduction (Matta criteria: PMSF 90.91% vs. ORIF 86.67%, P = 1.000) or 12-month Majeed scores (82.73 ± 7.89 vs. 75.40 ± 13.64, P = 0.125) between the two groups. Conclusion For patients with unstable pelvic fractures with severe polytrauma, PMSF offers a better minimally invasive treatment option over traditional ORIF in terms of reducing trauma and shortening rehabilitation periods, while achieving comparable fracture reduction quality and functional recovery. Therefore, PMSF can be considered a preferred choice for such cases. Trial registration This study was retrospectively registered. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2500110578; Registration date: 16/10/2025;PID:288327).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Surgery
Published
2026-01-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-026-03493-z
Primary Topic
Pelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Open reduction and internal fixation versus percutaneous multiple-trajectory screw fixation for unstable pelvic fractures with severe polytrauma: a prospective study

Shuming Du, Yaxu Zhang, Changgui Zhang
BMC Surgery
Pelvic and Acetabular Injuries
article

Open reduction and internal fixation versus percutaneous multiple-trajectory screw fixation for unstable pelvic fractures with severe polytrauma: a prospective study

Shuming Du, Yaxu Zhang, Changgui Zhang
article en

Abstract

Abstract Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus percutaneous multiple-trajectory screw fixation (PMSF) in the treatment of unstable pelvic fractures with severe polytrauma, and to provide a basis for optimizing surgical strategies. Methods A prospective study included 26 patients (January-July 2024) divided into ORIF (n = 15) and PMSF (n = 11) groups. ORIF used traditional open plating/screws, while PMSF employed fluoroscopy-guided minimally invasive screws. Primary outcomes: operative time, blood loss, complications (infection, nerve injury), fracture reduction (Matta criteria), functional recovery (Majeed score). Secondary outcomes: hospital stay, preoperative waiting time. Age, ISS, and Tile classification were controlled. SPSS 27.0 analyzed data (significance P < 0.05). Results The PMSF group demonstrated significantly shorter preoperative waiting times (124.09 ± 54.45 h vs. 260.67 ± 170.92 h, P = 0.018), less intraoperative blood loss (68.18 ± 49.96 mL vs. 510.00 ± 264.71 mL, P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (23.36 ± 8.64 days vs. 33.93 ± 12.54 days, P = 0.024) compared with the ORIF group. There were no significant differences in the rates of excellent/good fracture reduction (Matta criteria: PMSF 90.91% vs. ORIF 86.67%, P = 1.000) or 12-month Majeed scores (82.73 ± 7.89 vs. 75.40 ± 13.64, P = 0.125) between the two groups. Conclusion For patients with unstable pelvic fractures with severe polytrauma, PMSF offers a better minimally invasive treatment option over traditional ORIF in terms of reducing trauma and shortening rehabilitation periods, while achieving comparable fracture reduction quality and functional recovery. Therefore, PMSF can be considered a preferred choice for such cases. Trial registration This study was retrospectively registered. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2500110578; Registration date: 16/10/2025;PID:288327).

BMC SurgeryVol. 26(1)
Army Medical University (CN), Daping Hospital (CN), The Affiliated Yongchuan Hospital of Chongqing Medical University (CN), Southwest Hospital (CN), Chongqing Medical University (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Pelvic and Acetabular Injuries
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.