Percutaneous Iliosacral Screw Versus Percutaneous Reconstruction Plate Fixation For Tile C Sacral Fractures

Objective:To compare the difference for treating Tile C sacral fractures between percutaneous iliosacral screw and percutaneous reconstruction plate. Methods:Clinical data of 63 cases of unilateral Tile C sacral fractures were retrospectively analyzed, including 26 cases of percutaneous iliosacral screw internal fixation and 37 cases of percutaneous reconstruction plate internal fixation. The data of operation time, intraoperative bleeding loss, length of incision, X-ray exposure frequency and fracture healing time were compared between both groups. The clinical efficacy was evaluated based on Matta standards and Majeed standards. Results:All patients were followed up for 12-36 months(average 16months),which showed no intraoperative neurovascular injury, incision infection, internal fixation loose or breakage, disunion, or obvious lower limb length inequality.There were significant statistical differences in operative time, intro-operative blood loss, length of incision, X-ray exposure frequency,Matta standards and Majeed standards between two groups.there was no statistical differences in fracture healing time between two groups. Conclusion:Percutaneous iliosacral screw internal fixation is better than percutaneous reconstruction plate internal fixation in intro-operative blood loss and length of incision. However, percutaneous iliosacral screw internal fixation has greater surgical risk,asks higher technology,and suits experienced treatment team. Percutaneous reconstruction plate internal fixation is slightly worse than percutaneous iliosacral screw internal fixation in clinical efficacy.But Percutaneous reconstruction plate internal fixation has shorter operative time,less X-ray exposure frequency,easier operation,and more convenient to be promoted in primary hospital.