Multi-slice spiral computed tomography in diagnosing unstable pelvic fractures in elderly and effect of less invasive stabilization

Table 1 Fracture site detection by X-ray versus computed tomography (cases, n)

Fracture site	X-ray	CT
Pubic symphysis	4	10
Iliac wing	7	19
Sacroiliac periarticular	11	35
Sacral	7	19

CT: Computed tomography.

Table 2 Tile classification of different fractures (cases, n)

Type	X-ray	MPR	VR	MIP
B1	10	11	11	11
B2	60	66	66	66
B3	3	4	4	4
C1	2	5	5	5

MIP: Maximum intensity projection; MPR: Multiplanar reconstruction; VR: Volume rendering.

Table 3 Postoperative conditions by study group (mean ± SD)

Groups	Cases	Operation time (h)	Fracture healing time (wk)	Hospitalization time (wk)
Study	58	1.23 ± 0.68	12.21 ± 2.57	16.23 ± 2.42
Control	28	1.58 ± 0.72	14.86 ± 2.62	19.86 ± 2.47
t value		2.194	4.453	6.475
P value		0.031	< 0.001	< 0.001

Table 4 Pre- versus postoperative visual analog scale scores (mean ± SD)

Group	Cases	Preoperative	Postoperative
Study	58	8.95 ± 0.98	2.31 ± 0.62
Control	28	8.71 ± 1.08	4.22 ± 0.64
t value		1.029	13.248
P value		0.306	< 0.001

Table 5 Postoperative reduction by study group, n (%)

Groups	Cases	Excellent	Good	Poor	Excellent and good
Study	58	34 (58.62)	24 (41.38)	0 (0.00)	58 (100.00)
Control	28	10 (35.71)	14 (50.00)	4 (14.29)	24 (85.71)
χ2 value					5.767
P value					0.016

Table 6 Postoperative poor internal fixation by study group, n (%)

Group	Cases	Loose	Cracked	Total
Study	58	1 (1.72)	0 (0.00)	1 (1.72)
Control	28	3 (10.71)	2 (7.14)	5 (17.86)
χ2 value				5.291
P value				0.021

Table 7 Postoperative functional recovery by study group, n (%)

Group	Cases	Excellent	Good	Poor	Excellent and good
Study	58	30 (51.72)	26 (44.83)	2 (3.45)	56 (96.55)
Control	28	15 (53.57)	7 (25.00)	6 (21.43)	22 (78.57)
χ2 value					5.262
P value					0.022