Transsacral Bar Osteosynthesis

Hofmann, Alexander; Rommens, Pol Maria

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-66572-6_13

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Transsacral bar osteosynthesis is indicated for treatment of unilateral or bilateral sacral ala fractures. A 6-mm bar is inserted through the posterior ilium and SI joint and advanced through the center of the S1 vertebral body to the opposite posterior ilium 49) . Compression across the fracture is achieved by tightening of washers and nuts at both ends of the bar against the posterior ilium.…”

Section: Treatment Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compression across the fracture is achieved by tightening of washers and nuts at both ends of the bar against the posterior ilium. CT-guided preoperative analysis of fracture morphology and transsacral corridor dimensions is crucial due to the high variation of sacral anatomy among individuals 49) . A few studies analyzing the use of transsacral bar osteosynthesis for treatment of FFS have been reported; favorable outcomes for patients were demonstrated in all of these studies 50 51 52 53) .…”

Section: Treatment Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis and Sacrum: Current Trends in Literature

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) and fragility fractures of the sacrum (FFS), which are emerging in the geriatric population, exhibit characteristics that differ from those of pelvic ring disruptions occurring in the younger population. Treatment of FFP/FFS by a multidisciplinary team can be helpful in reducing morbidity and mortality with the goal of reducing pain, regaining early mobility, and restoring independence for activities of daily living. Conservative treatment, including bed rest, pain therapy, and mobilization as tolerated, is indicated for treatment of FFP type I and type II as loss of stability is limited with these fractures. Operative treatment is indicated for FFP type II when conservative treatment has failed and for FFP type III and type IV, which are displaced fractures associated with intense pain and increased instability. Minimally invasive stabilization techniques, such as percutaneous fixation, are favored over open reduction internal fixation. There is little evidence regarding outcomes of patients with FFP/FFS and more literature is needed for determination of optimal management. The aim of this article is to provide a concise review of the current literature and a discussion of the latest recommendations for orthopedic treatment and management of FFP/FFS.

show abstract

Section: Treatment Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Treatment Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis and Sacrum: Current Trends in Literature

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Washers and nuts are placed on both sides of the bar to lock its position and create slight compression. [38] Before inserting the bar, a thorough analysis of the morphology of the upper sacrum is needed. A corridor of sufficient dimension is not available in all patients to safely insert a trans-sacral implant.…”

Section: Minimal-invasive Surgical Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fragility fractures of the pelvis: An update

Rommens

Hofmann

2022

JMSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) are becoming a frequent diagnosis in clinical practice. FFP typically appear after a low-energy trauma in female patients of old age with osteoporosis. The characteristics of FFP differ from pelvic injuries after high-energy trauma. The new comprehensive FFP-classification reflects the specific morphology of the fractures and distinguishes different categories of instability. Key factors for operative treatment are the degree of instability, late presentation, and failure of conservative treatment. It is recommended to treat FFP type I and FFP type II conservatively, whereas FFP type III and FFP type IV should be treated operatively. Surgical stabilization should be as minimal-invasive as possible. Alternatives for the posterior pelvic ring are ilio-sacral screw osteosynthesis with or without cement augmentation, the transiliac internal fixator, the trans-sacral bar, and lumbopelvic fixation. Alternatives for the anterior pelvic ring are the retrograde transpubic screw, the internal fixator, and plate osteosynthesis. The length of hospital stay and complication ratio is higher after operative treatment, whereas mortality is lower than in the conservative group. Quality of life and mobility are reduced in all patients, independent of the classification and treatment type. The FFP-classification and the treatment recommendations provide a framework for searching for the best solution for each individual patient.

show abstract

Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis and Sacrum

Lee

Kim

2023

J Korean Fract Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transsacral Bar Osteosynthesis

Cited by 3 publications

References 23 publications

Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis and Sacrum: Current Trends in Literature

Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis and Sacrum: Current Trends in Literature

Fragility fractures of the pelvis: An update

Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis and Sacrum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About