EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 7 (2021) SICOT-J, 7 (2021) 40 Full HTML
Open Access
Review

Table 1

Clinical studies with TIFI and reported data for this review.

Authors Number of cases Mean age in years (SD) or (range) Men/Women Fracture type(s) Mean follow-up in months (range) Mean operative time / min (range) Radiographic results Clinical outcome Complications
Korovessis et al. [22] 14 28.3 (6.7) 9/5

  • 8 Denis I

  • 3 Denis II

  • 1 Denis III

  • 2 not reported

  • Retrospectively

  • 29

  • (27–39)

 45 (35–65) Matta criteria:

  • 6 very good

  • 5 good

  • 4 fair

  • 0 poor (>20 mm dislocation)

 d’Aubigne:

  • 9 good

  • 5 satisfactory

 No complications
Dienstknecht et al. [12] 67 36.7 (16-76) 38/29

  • 46 Tile C1

  • 11 Tile C2

  • 10 Tile C3

  • 17 Denis I

  • 32 Denis II

  • 2 Denis III

  • 16 IS dislocation

  • Retrospectively

  • 37

  • (36-42)

 29 (max. 48) Pelvic outcome score:

  • 45 very good

  • 16 good

  • 0 fair

  • 1 poor (>5 mm displacement)

 Pelvic outcome score:

  • 19 excellent

  • 16 good

  • 25 fair

  • 2 poor

  • 4 infection

  • 1 screw malposition

  • 1 fracture-dislocation

  • 1 screw loosening
Salasek et al. [14] 32 37.9 (14–73) (3 infants) 16/16

  • almost 61-C1.3

  • 2 IS dislocation

  • no further data

 prospectively not reported not reported Pelvic outcome score:

  • 7 very good

  • 5 good

  • 12 fair

  • 1 poor (>5 mm displacement)

 Maajed score:

  • 14 excellent

  • 4 good

  • 5 fair

  • 2 poor

 1 infection with implant loosening
Wang et al. [19] 29 40.8 (21–72) 15/14

  • 5 AO 61-C1

  • 24 AO 61-B2

  • 4 Denis I

  • 25 Denis II

  • Retrospectively

  • 38.3 (±21.3) (12–84)

 28.2 (±4.6) (20–38) Matta criteria:

  • 11 excellent

  • 15 good

  • 3 fair

  • 0 poor (>20 mm dislocation)

 Maajed score:

  • 10 excellent

  • 16 good

  • 3 fair

  • 0 poor

  • 1 screw loosening

  • 1 removal TIFI
Wu et al. [21] 16 36.3 (20–57) 13/10

  • 3 Tile B2

  • 8 Tile B3

  • 5 Tile C1

  • Retrospectively

  • 15 (13–20)

 24 Matta criteria:

  • 7 excellent

  • 6 good

  • 3 fair

  • 0 poor (>20 mm dislocation)

 Majeed score:

  • 8 excellent

  • 6 good

  • 2 fair

  • 0 poor

 2 pain at implant side
Schmitz et al. [16] 11 (25) n.r. n.r.

  • 3 high impact

  • 8 fragility fracture

  • Retrospectively

  • n.r.

 45 (±19) Not reported for TIFI Not reported for TIFI No infection
Omar et al. [20] 11 (38) n.r. n.r. not reported to TIFI

  • Retrospectively

  • ≥ 12 months

 n.r. Not reported for TIFI Not reported for TIFI 1 fracture-dislocation
Korovessis et al. [23] 6 (22) 41.6(16-67) 4/2

  • 3 AO 61-C1

  • 2 AO 61-C2

  • 1 AO 61-C3

  • Retrospectively

  • Not reported

  • To single or double

  • TIFI

 76 (68–80) Matta criteria:

  • 5 excellent

  • 0 good

  • 1 fair

  • 0 poor (>20 mm dislocation)

 Maajed score:

  • 9 excellent

  • 14 good

  • 4 fair

  • 0 poor

  • 2 infection

  • 1 screw loosening

n.r. = not reported; Schmitz et al. [16], Omar et al. [20], and Korovessis et al. [23] evaluated the outcomes of different devices. Therefore, the number of patients given in brackets is the total sample size.

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.