9 Early vs Late Definitive Fixation of Pelvic Ring Fractures in Polytraumatized Patients. a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim The aim of this systematic review is to compare the short-term clinical outcomes between early (EDF) and late definitive fixation (LDF) in polytraumatized patients with pelvic ring fractures (PRF). Method The following databases: Embase, Medline and Cochrane Library were searched until June 2022. Studies comparing EDF and LDF for PRF in polytrauma patients defined as ISS >15 were included. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Results Out of 869 studies screened, 10 were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 2918 patients. The most common time point used to define EDF was within 24 hours of hospital admission and LDF (>24hr). The most common reasons for LDF were surgeon’s choice, availability of pelvic surgeon and transfer from other hospitals. Our meta-analysis revealed that EDF was associated with a reduced length of hospital stay (WMD=-3.52 days; 95% CI: [-5.43 to -1.62], p<0.0003) and lower incidence of ARDS (RR=0.48; 95% CI: [0.20 to 1.18], p=0.04). No significant association was found in mortality, length of ICU stays, multi-organ failure, sepsis and surgical site infection between EDF and LDF. Conclusions These findings suggest that early definitive fixation may be a safe and viable option with no increased risk of complications and mortality. However, the adequacy of resuscitation and the estimate of physiologic reserve should be balanced with the risks of operative fixation in all patients. Further prospective validation studies are warranted to test the predictive ability of the various proposed trauma care models and stratify patients for EDF.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".