Innovations in Sacral Fracture Management: A Comparative Study of Open vs Closed Reduction Outcomes

Abstract

Background: Sacral fractures represent a significant challenge in orthopedic trauma care, particularly given their occurrence in both  high-energy traumas in young individuals and low-energy falls in the elderly. The choice between conservative treatment and surgical  intervention, including open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRIF), remains  contentious due to varying outcomes reported in the literature.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes, radiologic healing, functional recovery, and complications associated with  ORIF and CRIF techniques in the treatment of sacral fractures.

Methods: A prospective study that was conducted on 20 patients with  sacral fractures who were divided into two groups: 10 patients underwent CRIF, and the other 10 underwent ORIF. Clinical evaluation,  radiological assessments, and functional outcomes were meticulously recorded.

Results: The AO classification showed a statistical  significance in fracture types between the groups (p=0.015). However, operative time and time to operation were not significantly  different (p=0.130 and p=0.587 respectively). Functional outcomes, including sitting, standing ability, and sexual function, which showed  no significant differences (p>0.05). The incidence of complications was low, with no significant differences in outcomes between the two treatment modalities.

Conclusion: Both ORIF and CRIF were viable options for the treatment of sacral fractures, with no significant differences in clinical outcomes, functional recovery, or complication rates.