The patient was mobilized on the first postoperative day with no weight-bearing restrictions and released to rehabilitation on day 13. Follow-ups were at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. She showed no loss of function compared with her condition before the accident and reported to walk freely as before. There was also no pain in the symphyseal area. The Short-Form-Health-Survey-12 (SF-12) score was assessed, yielding a score of 31 points. Radiographs at 6 and 12 months postoperatively showed no signs of secondary displacement or implant failure (Figs. 6-B, 7-B, and 8-B).
Stabilization of the pubic symphysis using plate fixation, after open book injuries, is considered to be the current gold standard. Therefore, 4.5- or 3.5-mm dynamic compression plate (DCP) steel plates or locking plates are commonly used. These implants seem to enhance the outcome of patients after symphyseal disruption5. Yet for both the implants, complications such as screw loosening and implant breakage have been observed11,13. Although alternative minimally invasive stabilization techniques (e.g., INFIX, Pelvic Bridge, Cannulated Screws) have been described to stabilize the anterior pelvic ring in the literature, none have replaced the current plate osteosynthesis so far1,8-11,14-17. Although the Pelvic Bridge and the INFIX are both used as minimally invasive techniques, the length and size of the hardware compared with the technique described in this Case Report are larger and may cause more irritation. Although the Pelvic Bridge had been described in 2012, there are only a few reports found in the literature so far15,17. The described technique in our Case Report and the Pelvic Bridge both use the advantage of the pubic tubercles for fixation and stability. However, our technique only requires less dissection of the soft tissue because the implants are limited to the local parasymphyseal region.
The usual INFIX has been used in some studies with good results, but some complications such as femoral nerve palsy and massive irritations have also been reported16,18,19.
To achieve a stable stabilization of the symphysis pubis, Gonzálvez et al. showed that a minimal invasive stabilization technique using cannulated screws is biomechanically even superior to standard plate fixation. Furthermore, Osterhoff et al. showed a higher biomechanical rigidity of an internal fixator used parallel to the symphysis. Yet these techniques are limited because they do not allow a vertical reduction as required and are performed, in this case, using the internal fixator.
In our case, because of the patient's obesity and a higher risk of wound healing disorders, we decided to try a new minimally invasive technique. We decided to perform a modified stabilization technique using an internal fixator (USS Fracture; Synthes), which has already been established in spinal surgery15-17. Internal fixators used for pelvic surgery provide comparable challenging biomechanical requirements as in spinal surgery7,8,10,20. The patient consented to the novel, individualized procedure.
The small incision was adapted to the commonly used Pfannenstiel incision for symphyseal plating, yet with only 5 cm length. The pubic symphysis was 8 cm deep in the soft tissue, and both sides of the symphysis had to be prepared through slit incisions of the fascia. Regarding the distinct soft tissue, the incision was considered as a minimally invasive technique in this case because we would have needed an extensive approach of at least 15 cm for a conventional open plate fixation. In an athletic patient, the size of the approach would not make a large difference compared with the usual Pfannenstiel incision. The approach does not require the extended incision through the fascial layer and detachment of the rectus muscle for the plate fixation to reduce soft-tissue damage. In addition, the incision through the fascial layer for the placement of the plate and screw fixation can cause further soft-tissue damage, increasing the risk of wound complications. This approach also avoids encroaching on the femoral canal with already reported femoral nerve damage caused by INFIX stabilization21.
Using the intraoperative fluoroscopy, an adequate reduction and stabilization were feasible. The handling technique was performed according to the standard stabilization technique for spinal fractures7. The postoperative radiographs and CT scan showed an adequate reduction. Mobilization and release from the hospital were comparable to the standard technique. After 6 months, the patients' quality of life was comparable to that obtained after the standard procedure. Although irritations due to the prominence of the implant have been described for spinal injuries and the usage of INFIX11,18, the patient had no pain-related problems with the internal fixator. The patient was able to sit and had no pain in the clinical follow-up. Athletic patients may have pain-related symptoms, due to the size of the implant, these problems have been reported in patients treated with an INFIX in several studies, which often requires a second surgery with hardware removal18. Raman et al. reviewed 482 reported cases, with a retention rate of 7.5%, most of which were due to infection. They further stated that there is no consensus on whether symphyseal implants should be removed19. Despite the high stress on the implant through weight bearing of the morbidly obese patient, no loss of reduction was seen at the final follow-up (Figs. 6–8). In the future, advanced outcome measurement techniques could be used to further determine the patient's outcome in detail22.
Thus far, there are scarce reports in the literature about the use of spinal internal fixators to stabilize pelvic injuries. Notably, pedicle screw and rod systems from spinal surgery have been described and successfully used as alternatives to pelvic external fixators, reaching broadly from one anterior-inferior iliac spine to the other11,12. In contrast, and hereby reported for the first time, the very local use of this type of implant on the symphysis in cases of disruption (open book injuries) seems to spare soft-tissue lesions and has better biomechanical effects acting in the region of interest. In addition, the series of implant handling maneuvers with the help of the long lever of the Schanz screws, as well as the sliding over the rod for better compression, simplifies the overall reduction during the course of the operation. As shown in this case, the use of an internal fixator for the stabilization of the pubic symphysis is an effective alternative to the standard plate fixation as a new minimally invasive stabilization option. To date, we could not observe disadvantages of the internal fixator compared with the standard plate stabilization; however, it allows a minimally invasive technique. Future biomechanical and clinical studies will be necessary to definitely evaluate the advantages of this new stabilization method.
1. Lázaro Gonzálvez L, Martínez Reina J, Cano Luis P, Jiménez Baquero J, Sueiro Fernández J, Giráldez Sánchez MA. Is cannulated-screw fixation an alternative to plate osteosyntheses in open book fractures? A biomechanical analysis. Injury. 2016;47(suppl 3):S72-S77.
2. Eastman JG, Krieg JC, Routt ML Jr. Early failure of symphysis pubis plating. Injury. 2016;47:1707-12.
3. Tosounidis TH, Sheilch HQ, Kanakaris NK, Giannoudis PK. The use of external fixators in the definitive stabilization of the pelvis in polytrauma patients: safety, effiancy and clinical outcomes. Injury. 2017;48(6):1139-46.
4. Ojodu I, Pohlemann T, Hopp S, Rollmann MFR, Holstein JH, Herath SC. Predictors of mortality for complex fractures of the pelvic ring in the eldery: a twelve-year review from a German level 1 trauma center. Injury. 2015;46(10):1996-8.
5. Pizanis A, Garcia P, Santelmann M, Culemann U, Pohlemann T. Reduction and fixation capabilities of different plate designs for pubic symphysis disruption: a biomechanical comparison. Injury. 2013;44(2):183-8.
6. Grimshaw CS, Bledsoe JG, Moed BR. Locked versus standard unlocked plating of the pubic symphysis: a cadaver biomechanical study. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26(7):402-6.
7. Loibl M, Korsun M, Reiss J, Gueorguiev B, Nerlich M, Neumann C, Baumann F. Spinal fracture reduction with a minimal-invasive transpedicular Schanz Screw system: clinical and radiological one-year follow-up. Injury. 2015;46(suppl 4):S75-82.
8. Osterhoff G, Tiziani S, Hafner C, Ferguson SJ, Simmen HP, Werner CM. Symphyseal internal rod fixation versus standard plate fixation for open book pelvic ring injuries: a biomechanical study. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2016;42(2):197-202.
9. Cano-Luis P, Giráldez-Sanchez MA, Martínez-Reina J, Serrano-Escalante FJ, Galleguillos-Rioboo C, Lázaro-Gonzálvez A, García-Rodríguez J, Navarro A. Biomechanical analysis of a new minimally invasive system for osteosynthesis of pubis symphysis disruption. Injury. 2012;43(suppl 2):S20-7.
10. Stuby FM, Doebele S, Agarwal Y, Windolf M, Gueorguiev B, Ochs BG. Influence of flexible fixation for open book injury after pelvic trauma—a biomechanical study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2014;29(6):657-63.
11. Fang C, Alabdulrahman H, Pape HC. Complications after percutaneous internal fixator for anterior pelvic ring injuries. Int Orthop. 2017;41(9):1785-90.
12. Gardner MJ, Mehta S, Mirza A, Ricci WA. Anterior pelvic reduction and fixation using a subcutaneous internal fixator. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26(5):269-77.
13. Fridman M, Glass AM, Nornha JAP, Carvahal EF, Martini RK. Spontaneous urinary voiding of a metallic implant after operative fixation of the pubic symphysis. J Joint Bone Surg. 2003;85-A(6):1129-32.
14. Vigdorchig JM, Esquivel AO, Jin X, Yang KH, Onwudiwe NA, Vaidya R. Biomechanical stability of a supra-acetabular pedicle screw internal fixation device (INFIX) vs external fixation and plates for vertically unstable pelvic fractures. J Orthop Surg Res. 2012;7:31.
15. Hiestermann TG, Hill BW, Cole PA. A percutaneous method of subcutaneous fixation for the anterior pelvic ring–the pelvic Bridge. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:2116-23.
16. Vaidya R, Tonnos F, Nasr K, Kanneganti P, Curtis G. The anterior subcutaneous pelvic fixator (INFIX) in an anterior posterior compression type 3 pelvic fracture. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(suppl 2):S21-2.
17. Cole PA, Dyskin EA, Gilbertson JA. Minimally-invasive fixation for anterior ring disruptions. Injury. 2015;46(suppl 3):S27-34.
18. Vaidya R, Kubiak EN, Bergin PF, Dombroski DG, Critchlow RJ, Sethi A, Starr AJ. Complications of anterior subcutaneous internal fixation for unstable pelvis fractures: a multicenter study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:2124-31.
19. Raman R, Roberts CS, Pape HC, Giannoudis PV. Implant retention and removal after internal fixation of the symphysis pubis. Injury. 2005;36(7):827-31.
20. Eagan M, Kim H, Manson TT, Gary JL, Russell JP, Hsieh AH, O'Toole RV, Boulton CL. Internal anterior fixators for pelvic ring injuries: do monoaxial pedicle screws provide more stiffness than polyaxial pedicle screws? Injury. 2015;46:996-1000.
21. Hesse D, Kandmir U, Solberg B, Stroh A, Osgood G, Sems SA, Collinge CA. Femoral nerve palsy after pelvic fracture treated with INFIX: a case series. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(3):138-43.
22. Braun BJ, Bushuven E, Hell R, Veith NT, Buschbaum J, Holstein JH, Pohlemann T. A novel tool for continuous fracture aftercare–clinical feasibility and first results of a new telemetric gait analysis insole. Injury. 2016;47(2):490-4.