Skip to main content
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Download PDF
  • Original article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Consensus for management of sacral fractures: from the diagnosis to the treatment, with a focus on the role of decompression in sacral fractures

Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology volume 24, Article number: 46 (2023) Cite this article

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

There is no evidence in the current literature about the best treatment option in sacral fracture with or without neurological impairment.

Materials and methods

The Italian Pelvic Trauma Association (A.I.P.) decided to organize a consensus to define the best treatment for traumatic and insufficiency fractures according to neurological impairment.

Results

Consensus has been reached for the following statements: When complete neurological examination cannot be performed, pelvic X-rays, CT scan, hip and pelvis MRI, lumbosacral MRI, and lower extremities evoked potentials are useful. Lower extremities EMG should not be used in an acute setting; a patient with cauda equina syndrome associated with a sacral fracture represents an absolute indication for sacral reduction and the correct timing for reduction is “as early as possible”. An isolated and incomplete radicular neurological deficit of the lower limbs does not represent an indication for laminectomy after reduction in the case of a displaced sacral fracture in a high-energy trauma, while a worsening and progressive radicular neurological deficit represents an indication. In the case of a displaced sacral fracture and neurological deficit with imaging showing no evidence of nerve root compression, a laminectomy after reduction is not indicated. In a patient who was not initially investigated from a neurological point of view, if a clinical investigation conducted after 72 h identifies a neurological deficit in the presence of a displaced sacral fracture with nerve compression on MRI, a laminectomy after reduction may be indicated. In the case of an indication to perform a sacral decompression, a first attempt with closed reduction through external manoeuvres is not mandatory. Transcondylar traction does not represent a valid method for performing a closed decompression. Following a sacral decompression, a sacral fixation (e.g. sacroiliac screw, triangular osteosynthesis, lumbopelvic fixation) should be performed. An isolated and complete radicular neurological deficit of the lower limbs represents an indication for laminectomy after reduction in the case of a displaced sacral fracture in a low-energy trauma associated with imaging suggestive of root compression. An isolated and incomplete radicular neurological deficit of the lower limbs does not represent an absolute indication. A worsening and progressive radicular neurological deficit of the lower limbs represents an indication for laminectomy after reduction in the case of a displaced sacral fracture in a low-energy trauma associated with imaging suggestive of root compression. In the case of a displaced sacral fracture and neurological deficit in a low-energy trauma, sacral decompression followed by surgical fixation is indicated.

Conclusions

This consensus collects expert opinion about this topic and may guide the surgeon in choosing the best treatment for these patients.

Level of Evidence: IV.

Trial registration: not applicable (consensus paper).

Background

Sacral fractures are frequently associated with concomitant neurological injury and range from incomplete radiculopathies to a complete cauda equina syndrome depending on the mechanism of trauma, fracture type and location [1, 16, 20, 21, 43, 49, 53, 54], considering that they can reach up to 62% neurological impairment in sacral transverse fractures [24]. Sacral fractures are estimated to occur in 45% of all pelvic fractures; 4.5% are transverse. Less than 5% of sacral fractures occur as isolated injuries, often resulting from a direct blow or fall onto the sacrum. Because of the location of the lumbosacral plexus with respect to the sacrum, 25% of sacral fractures are associated with a neurologic injury. The widely accepted classification system of vertical sacral fractures was proposed by Denis and based on the location of the fracture (lateral to, through or medial to neural foramina; zones I–III) and their association with neurologic injury [2, 20]. Medialization of the fracture line and presence of additional transverse sacral fractures increase the prevalence of concomitant neurologic injury [3, 25, 62, 65]. Subsequent sacral classifications are mainly concerned with fracture morphology and do not consider neurologic injury as a determinant affecting surgical management [4, 30, 31]. Recently, efforts have begun to develop a comprehensive sacral fracture classification system that integrates neurologic status as a major determinant of the indication for surgical intervention [5, 17, 22, 26, 42, 47, 64]. Present guidelines for traumatic neurologic injury in patients with ongoing neural element compression have been shaped basically by the Surgical Timing in Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study (STASCIS) trial [6]. Therefore, there is great interest in having an orthopaedic point of view on this topic. The sacrum has a unique biomechanical feature because of the lack of segmental motion. Moreover, many sacral fractures are treated by trauma surgeons without formal spine surgery training [8]. At the moment there is no consensus on neurological monitoring, timing or type of surgical intervention (direct or indirect compression, with or without fixation) in complete and incomplete sacral neurological injuries [14, 15, 58,59,60,61].

A consideration that is worth subscribing to is that sacral fractures can occur in high-energy trauma in association with some other lesions of the pelvis, rachis or other districts; but, still, they can also occur in low-energy trauma in old patients, the so-called insufficiency fractures. Sacral insufficiency fractures can also result in neurological impairment, but little is known from the present literature about this kind of setting. Some authors suggest a possible role of sacral decompression in progressive neurological deficit associated with sacral insufficiency fractures, but with a lack of data supporting this strategy, the debate continues [8, 55, 56].

Methods

Regulations used in order to conduct the Consensus Conference (CC) were adopted from “The Methodological Manual — How to Organise a Consensus Conference”. Levels of evidence (LoE) come from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine.

The organizing committee undertook the critical revision of the literature: five authors independently performed a Higher Health Institute systematic literature review according to PRISMA statements. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were used with the search strings: “Sacral” and “fractures” and “decompression” or “neurological deficit” or “timing”; “sacral fractures” and “neurological decompression”; “sacral fractures” “surgery”; “insufficiency sacral fractures” and “treatment”.

These terms were sequentially searched using the following databases: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Databases are the main tools for researching the literature. The following inclusion criteria were used: all articles focusing on the management of sacral fractures associated with or not associated with a neurological deficit were considered from case report to meta-analysis, considering the level of statistical relevance and populations of the various studies.

Inclusion criteria consisted of published studies pertinent to our research question between the years 1977 and 2023. Results were limited to humans and to papers published in the English language, although some studies in French were also included.

Conferences, abstracts, theses, unpublished reports and commercial advertisements were excluded as the level of evidence was considered too low.

Initially, titles of articles which met the inclusion criteria were screened for primary inclusion. All the obtained abstracts were further evaluated for acceptability. The full texts of articles which met the relevance and inclusion criteria were obtained and reviewed, paying particular attention to relevance to our research questions. A manual cross reference search of relevant studies was performed, and the related relevant papers were also retrieved. The acquisition of articles is summarised in the flow-chart diagram (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Diagram showing selection of the articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria

Full size image

After the literature searches, the authors provided a comprehensive summary document divided into 20 un-solved questions summarized in 6 sections: diagnostic process, sacral fracture and cauda equina syndrome, sacral fracture and peripheral nerve deficit, late decompression, surgical technique and insufficiency fractures. Those 20 questions were discussed with the society board panel and the following 20 recommendations were proposed.

Proposed recommendations

Section 1: Diagnostic process

  1. 1.

    If a complete neurological examination (e.g. intubated polytraumatized patient) cannot be performed, pelvic X-rays are useful.

  2. 2.

    If a complete neurological examination (e.g. intubated polytraumatized patient) cannot be performed, a CT scan is useful.

  3. 3.

    If a complete neurological examination (e.g. intubated polytraumatized patient) cannot be performed, hip and pelvis MRI is useful.

  4. 4.

    If a complete neurological examination (e.g. intubated polytraumatized patient) cannot be performed, lumbosacral MRI is useful.

  5. 5.

    If a complete neurological examination (e.g. intubated polytraumatized patient) cannot be performed, lumbosacral evoked lower extremities potentials are useful.

  6. 6.

    Lower extremities EMG should not be used in an acute setting.

Section 2: Sacral fracture and cauda equina syndrome

  1. 7.

    A patient with cauda equina syndrome (lower extremities neurological deficit, erectile dysfunction, urinary retention/urinary or faecal incontinence and saddle anaesthesia) associated with a sacral fracture represents an absolute indication for sacral reduction and fixation.

  2. 8.

    In a patient with cauda equina syndrome (lower extremities neurological deficit, erectile dysfunction, urinary retention/urinary or faecal incontinence and saddle anaesthesia) associated with a sacral fracture, the correct timing for reduction and fixation is “as early as possible”.

Section 3: Sacral fracture and peripheral nerve deficit

  1. 9.

    An isolated and complete radicular neurological deficit of the lower limbs represents an indication for laminectomy after reduction in the case of a displaced sacral fracture in a high-energy trauma associated with imaging suggestive of root compression.

  2. 10.

    An isolated and incomplete radicular neurological deficit of the lower limbs does not represent an indication to laminectomy after reduction in the case of a displaced sacral fracture in a high-energy trauma associated with imaging suggestive of root compression.

  3. 11.

    Worsening and progressive radicular neurological deficit of the lower limbs represents an indication for laminectomy after reduction in the case of a displaced sacral fracture in a high-energy trauma associated with imaging suggestive of root compression.

  4. 12.

    In the case of a displaced sacral fracture and neurological deficit with imaging showing no evidence of nerve root compression, a laminectomy after reduction is not indicated.

Section 4: Late decompression

  1. 13.

    In a patient who was not initially investigated from a neurological point of view (neither physical examination nor imaging), due to general circumstances, but then clinical investigation after 72 h identifies a neurological deficit in the presence of a displaced sacral fracture with nerve compression on MRI, a laminectomy after reduction is indicated.

Section 5: Surgical technique

  1. 14.

    If there is an indication to perform a sacral decompression, a first attempt with closed reduction through external manoeuvres is not mandatory.

  2. 15.

    Transcondylar traction does not represent a valid method of closed decompression in unstable unilateral pelvic fractures and vertical-shear type fractures.

  3. 16.

    Following a sacral decompression, a sacral fixation (e.g. sacroiliac screw, triangular osteosynthesis, lumbopelvic fixation) should be performed.

Section 6: Insufficiency fractures

  1. 17.

    An isolated and complete radicular neurological deficit of the lower limbs represents an absolute indication for laminectomy after reduction in the case of a displaced sacral fracture in a low-energy trauma associated with imaging suggestive of root compression.

  2. 18.

    An isolated and incomplete radicular neurological deficit of the lower limbs does not represent an absolute indication for laminectomy after reduction in the case of a displaced sacral fracture in a low-energy trauma associated with imaging suggestive of root compression.

  3. 19.

    Worsening and progressive radicular neurological deficit of the lower limbs represents an indication for laminectomy after reduction in the case of a displaced sacral fracture in a low-energy trauma associated with imaging suggestive of root compression.

  4. 20.

    In the case of a displaced sacral fracture and neurological deficit in a low-energy trauma, surgical fixation after performing a sacral decompression is indicated.

All the active members of the society were interviewed as to their agreement or disagreement with the proposed statements. Consensus was reached for each statement if the level of agreement among the members was over 75%. Subsequently, the results were discussed during the annual meeting of the Italian Pelvic Trauma Association.

Results

Agreement rates for each statement are shown in Fig. 2 and the statements approved by consensus are summarized in Table 1. The panel did not reach consensus about the following statements:

  1. a)

    An isolated and complete radicular neurological deficit of the lower limbs represents an indication for laminectomy after reduction in the case of a displaced sacral fracture in a high-energy trauma associated with imaging suggestive of root compression.

  2. b)

    In a patient who was not initially investigated from a neurological point of view (neither physical examination nor imaging), due to general circumstances, but then clinical investigation after 72 h identifies a neurological deficit in the presence of a displaced sacral fracture with nerve compression on MRI, a laminectomy after reduction is indicated.

  3. c)

    An isolated and complete radicular neurological deficit of the lower limbs represents an absolute indication for laminectomy after reduction in the case of a displaced sacral fracture in a low-energy trauma associated with imaging suggestive of root compression.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Rate of agreement for each statement

Full size image

In the following paragraph, comments by the panel during the final discussion are reported.

The panel emphasized that lumbopelvic CT scan with multiplanar reconstruction is considered strictly necessary for a correct diagnosis and surgical planning. Furthermore, the panel also agreed that hip, pelvis and lumbosacral MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) is useful for detecting radicle kinking and compression of the nerve/plexus by the displaced fracture, and it should be performed as early as possible considering the general condition of the patient. Eventually, the panel agreed that timing for all examinations should be chosen according to the patient’s general condition.

Regarding statement 6, the panel suggested that EMG may have a clinical application only after at least 3–4 weeks in patients with early deficit, to monitor eventual neurological recovery.

Even if there is no actual evidence that a sacral decompression performed less than 72 h from trauma achieves a better outcome [2], the panel suggested that reduction should be conducted as early as possible, considering the general condition of the patient and type of fracture [46, 47].

Experts agreed in considering an open surgical decompression (reduction and subsequent possible laminectomy ± fixation) useful where, on the basis of the pre-operative images, a closed decompression would not be conceivable.

In the case of a sacral decompression, a closed reduction for external manoeuvres should be considered only in selected cases; furthermore, external manoeuvres may be indicated only if the patient’s general conditions are good enough to allow this treatment in the first 48 h [14, 15].

A consensus was reached regarding the necessity of performing a stabilization after a sacral decompression, but not regarding which type of stabilization technique was the best; the debate is still going on, mainly in comparing sacral screw vs triangular fixation. The panel did not reach consensus regarding the scenario of an isolated and complete radicular neurological deficit of the lower limbs.

Conclusions

According to the consensus, the best way to approach a patient with a suspected neurological impairment associated with a displaced sacral fracture should be based on at least an AP X-ray of the pelvis, eventually followed by CT, useful especially for surgery planning. Pelvic and lumbosacral MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) as well as evoked lower extremities can be useful tools for completing the diagnostic approach if a patient’s general conditions allow [7, 10].

Several articles have shown that radiological investigations including X-rays, CT, lumbosacral and pelvic MRI and, in selected cases, angiography were generally performed during the early assessment of a polytraumatized patient [1, 7].

The role of evoked potentials is still debated in the literature: some authors suggest they may represent a valid adjuvant for diagnosis, monitoring (i.e. during decompression) and prediction of post-operative neurological impairment, and the panel agreed with their usefulness [2, 3, 9, 10].

Eventually, the panel agreed not to consider EMG in lower limbs in acute settings, but did agree on its use in follow-up. Even though some studies have been conducted soon after trauma, literature data support those indications indicating that EMG signs of denervation are not present immediately after the injury but they may appear later, most of the articles suggest at least 10–14 days later, because an EMG is not able to show signs of denervation in a damaged nerve until 2–4 weeks after damage [4, 10, 11, 52,53,54].

The panel agreed that “patient with cauda equina syndrome” (lower extremities neurological deficit, erectile dysfunction, urinary retention/urinary or faecal incontinence and saddle anesthesia) [14, 15, 44, 50] associated with a sacral fracture represents an absolute indication for sacral reduction and fixation [5, 35,36,37,38, 41].

Regarding the association between displaced sacral fractures and cauda equina syndrome, the literature hypothesizes two explanations: a displaced fracture may involve the sacral roots, causing kinking and compression, or the local haematoma may cause compression. Considering these etiologies, the literature suggests sacral laminectomy to be a possible treatment to avoid sacral roots compression, and surgical fixation following decompression should also be considered [1,2,3, 12]. In these cases, the surgical option should also be considered when there is failure of conservative management without recovery. On the other hand, stretching of roots, or avulsion or no evidence of canal narrowing does not represent an indication for surgery, and in these cases conservative treatment is usually recommended [13, 26]. Some authors, instead, consider cauda equina syndrome to be an absolute indication for early decompression, considering “as soon as safely possible” to be the correct timing [2]. In summary there is no consensus about cauda equina syndrome, and surgical decompression results are debated because patients with “suspected” or “incomplete” cauda equina syndrome have been enrolled, limiting the conclusions [2, 52].

There is still a lot of debate and a lack of data in the literature regarding the best approach and the correct timing for performing a sacral decompression in a patient with cauda equina syndrome. Recently, a review [3] of the clinical data did not demonstrate the benefits of surgical decompression thresholds of 24 or 48 h after symptom onset, and therefore a meaningful division with respect to timing of intervention and eventual bladder function could not be determined [7], depending on many factors including clinical presentation (e.g. saddle anesthesia is considered to be a negative predictor) and time to decompression [61, 62].

The most recurrent cut-off of 72 h has been adopted from spine surgery, some others say 48 h, and some others even say weeks; but still there are no data in support of a valid cut-off which can influence in a positive way the outcome for the patient. In this context, the panel agreed that the correct timing for reduction and fixation is “as early as possible”. The panel agreed also that the decision-making process should be influenced by the presence of a complete cauda equina syndrome or an incomplete radicular impairment [13].

In the historical literature, non-operative treatment has been the first treatment option, especially when neurological deficit was not present [7].

Surgical intervention is known to facilitate early mobilization, reduce early mortality and improve the long-term outcome [20, 27, 32, 45, 46, 51, 63]. The role of surgery in neurological recovery is still controversial [16].

Complete neurologic recovery occurs in a variable percentage of patients (46.5–62%) [25, 28, 43, 57] with abnormal immediate post-injury neurologic examination, whereas failure to recover any lost function may be seen in upward of 21.9% [15, 16].

The need for, and utility of, surgical nerve root decompression in the acute setting continues to be debated in the literature [4, 13]. Sacral roots subjected to compression, contusion, or traction caused by displacement and angulation of the sacral fracture fragments have a theoretical chance of recovery. A significant association between the presence of an incomplete neurological deficit and full recovery of neurological function has been demonstrated in the literature [13, 14]. On the other hand, no statistically significant association was noted between completeness of neurological injury and recovery of bowel and bladder function specifically (regardless of recovery of lower extremity neurological function). This discrepancy seems to be due to a propensity for complete injuries to recover bowel and bladder function without recovering extremity function [6, 16, 23].

Some authors have suggested that decompression is mandatory in the presence of canal compromise and progressive neurological deficit, regardless of the biomechanical criteria for surgery. In the presence of no progressive deficit or normal neurological status, performing surgery only for decompression has no clear benefits [2, 3, 15].

According to the panel, decompression surgery should be performed firstly through fracture reduction (indirect decompression) and laminectomy should be reserved only for worsening and progressive radicular neurological deficit of the lower limbs [2]; while in isolated and incomplete radicular neurological deficit or when there is no evidence of nerve root compression, a laminectomy after reduction is not recommended.

Regarding an early closed reduction manoeuver, only a few articles in the literature showed the results of early transcondylar traction. In selected cases a technique using manual countertraction and hyperlordosis induced by a pad positioned under the lumbo-sacral junction, has been proposed as a bridge to surgery [19, 20]. The panel agreed that a first attempt with closed reduction through external manoeuvres should not be mandatory because, in their experience, the chances of success in obtaining a good and stable reduction are low [33, 34, 45, 46].

Just a few articles are present in the literature about a possible role of transcondylar traction in displaced sacral fractures, with some authors considering this option to be a bridge to surgery. The panel agreed that it may not be useful in those patients.

We did not find evidence to support pre-operative transcondylar traction, and the panel do not suggest using it.

The literature was in favor of routinely performing fixations after surgical decompression because the decompression itself may lead to increased instability [16, 17, 25, 26].

Debate is still ongoing about which surgical fixation should be preferred; the two most common ways to perform a fixation are sacral screws vs lumbopelvic fixation. Each one has its pros and cons. For sacral screws, it is a minor invasive treatment with good stability of the implant [39, 40] and a lower risk of infections and discomfort; but this technique cannot be used in transverse sacral fractures. The pros of lumbopelvic fixation (also triangular osteosynthesis) are major stability, independent of fracture pattern, useful in insufficiency fractures with bad bone-stock in which sacral screws may not be enough. The cons include it being more expensive and a more invasive treatment with a higher risk of infection and problems with wound healing which could reach up to 16% [19, 20, 26, 48, 67].

Opinion leaders agreed that the final decision depends on the general condition of the patient, the fracture pattern and the surgeon’s preference.

The panel reached general agreement about routinely performing a stabilization after surgical decompression, but a consensus was not found about the best stabilization approach, which remains dependent on fracture pattern, patient characteristics and the surgeon’s skills.

In a patient who was not initially investigated from a neurological point of view (neither physical examination nor imaging), due to the general circumstances, but then clinical investigation after 72 h identifies a neurological deficit in the presence of a displaced sacral fracture with nerve compression on MRI, a laminectomy after reduction is indicated.

Although there is still a lot of debate and lack of data in the literature regarding delayed decompression, the general rule, as previously reported, is to perform the surgical intervention as soon as possible. Some cases have been published of patients undergoing sacral decompression more than 48–72 h after trauma in neglected neurological impairment or in failure of conservative management, and in some cases good outcomes in terms of neurological recovery have been reported [28]. To sum up, in the literature we could not find a threshold timing of surgery that conclusively correlated with outcome [15, 28]. But generally, a decompression within 48 h is considered the gold standard in the case of cauda equina syndrome [55, 56], and no improvements in outcomes have been recorded in cases where decompression was performed during the initial 24-h window in comparison to the 48-h window [29].

Neurologic symptoms associated with sacral insufficiency fractures are uncommon and occur in 2% of cases. Complete neurological deficits are exceptional. In general, neurological involvement associated with sacral insufficiency fractures resolves with the outcome of the fracture [55, 56].

As a result of the consensus, we also found that experts agreed in recommending surgical stabilization after a sacral decompression in the scenario of an insufficiency fracture, as well as in traumatic sacral fracture.

This study has several limitations; first of all, the study relies on the available literature, and the evidence base for some recommendations is limited. As noted, some statements lack consensus due to limited experience, even in highly specialized centres. Furthermore, the consensus was reached based on the opinions of experts from the Italian Pelvic Trauma Association. While expert opinions carry value, they can be influenced by individual biases and experiences, potentially affecting the reliability of the recommendations. To limit those biases, as far as possible the single surgeon background was considered and only the most skilled and experienced were included. Inter-personal influence bias was limited by individually providing the consensus questions. Some questions were not backed by robust RCTs and unfortunately relied only on case reports, retrospective studies and expert opinions, which may have inherent limitations. Moreover, the study covers a wide range of scenarios, from high-energy trauma to low-energy trauma, and includes different types of sacral fractures. The heterogeneity of the patient population and fracture patterns may impact the generalizability of the recommendations. While the consensus attempted to address various scenarios, some statements still lack agreement among the experts, indicating ongoing debates and uncertainties in the field. Further research and collection of clinical data are clearly necessary to support the best management of these patients.

Availability of data and materials

Data are available from the University of Turin local repository.

Change history

  • 24 November 2023

    The tagging error for the second author has been corrected

References

  1. Yi C, Hak DJ (2012) Traumatic spinopelvic dissociation or U-shaped sacral fracture: a review of the literature. Injury 43(4):402–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kepler CK, Schroeder GD, Hollern DA, Chapman JR, Fehlings MG, Dvorak M et al (2017) Do formal laminectomy and timing of decompression for patients with sacral fracture and neurologic deficit affect outcome? J Orthop Trauma. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.000000000000095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Santolini E et al (2020) Sacral fractures: issues, challenges, solutions. EFORT Open Rev. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.5.190064

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Metha S et al (2006) Sacral fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200611000-00009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Denis F, Davis S, Comfort TS (1988) Sacral fractures: an important problem. Retrospective analysis of 236 cases. Clin Orthop 27:67–81

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fehlings MG, Vaccaro A, Wilson JR, Singh A, Cwadotte DW, Harrop JS, Aarabi B, Shaffrey C, Dvorak M, Fisher C, Arnold P, Massicotte EM, Lewis S, Rampersaud R (2012) Results of the surgical timing in acute spinal cord injury study (STASCIS). PLoS One 7(2):e32037

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Grieser T (2020) Radiological diagnosis of pelvic ring fractures. Radiologe 60:226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Buhl LK, Bastos AB, Pollard RJ et al (2021) Neurophysiologic intraoperative monitoring for spine surgery: a practical guide from past to present. J Intensive Care Med 36(11):1237–1249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ajoe T (2006) Guideline 9D: guidelines on short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials. Am J Electroneurodiagnostic Technol 46(3):287–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Di Lazzaro V, Pilato F, Oliviero A, Saturno E, Dileone M, Tonali PA (2004) Role of motor evoked potentials in diagnosis of cauda equina and lumbosacral cord lesions. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000147296.97980.ca

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Partanen JV, Danner R (1982) Fibrillation potentials after muscle injury in humans. Muscle Nerve 5:S70–S73

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Campbell WW (2008) Evaluation and management of peripheral nerve injury. Clin Neurophysiol 119:1951

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Phelan STJD, Bishay M (1991) Conservative management of the transverse fractures of the sacrum with neurological features. J Bone Joint Surg 73:969–971

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kuris EO et al (2021) Evaluation and management of cauda equina syndrome. Am J Med. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2021.07.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Thakur JD, Storey C, Kalakoti P et al (2017) Early intervention in cauda equina syndrome associated with better outcomes: a myth or reality? Insights from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2005–2011). Spine J 17:1435–1448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. La Rosa G, Conti A, Cardali S, Cacciola F, Tomasello F (2004) Does early decompression improve neurological outcome of spinal cord injured patients? Appraisal of the literature using a meta-analytical approach. Spinal Cord 42:503–512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lindahl J, Mäkinen TJ, Koskinen SK, Söderlund T (2014) Factors associated with outcome of spinopelvic dissociation treated with lumbopelvic fixation. Injury 45:1914–1920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Thaunat M et al (2008) Transcondylar traction as a closed reduction technique in vertically unstable pelvic ring disruption. Int Orthop (SICOT). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-006-0283-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ruatti S et al (2013) Technique for reduction and percutaneous fixation of U- and H-shaped sacral fractures. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2013.03.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Latenser BA, Gentilello LM, Tarver AA, Thalgott JS, Batdorf JW (1991) Improved outcome with early fixation of skeletally unstable pelvic fractures. J Trauma 31:28–31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sabiston CP (1986) Wing PC Sacral fractures: classification and neurologic implications. J Trauma 26:1113–1115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Oransky M, Gasparini G (1997) Associated lumbosacral junction injuries (LSJIs) in pelvic fractures. J Orthop Trauma 11:509–512

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lim PAC, Tow AM (2007) Recovery and regeneration after spinal cord injury: a review and summary of recent literature. Ann Acad Med Singap 36:49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Garozzo D, Zollino G, Ferraresi S (2014) In lumbosacral plexus injuries can we identify indicators that predict spontaneous recovery or the need for surgical treatment? Results from a clinical study on 72 patients. J Brachial Plex Peripher Nerve Inj 9(1):1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Kempen DHR, Delawi D, Altena MC, Kruyt MC, van den Bekerom MPJ, Oner FC, Poolman RW (2018) Neurological outcome after traumatic transverse sacral fractures. JBJS 6:e1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lykomitros VA, Papavasiliou KA, Alzeer ZM, Sayegh FE, Kirkos JM, Kapetanos GA (2010) Management of traumatic sacral fractures: A retrospective case-series study and review of the literature. Injury 41:266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gribnaud AJG et al (2009) U-shaped sacral fractures: Surgical treatment and quality of life. Injury 40:1040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Schnaid E, Eisenstein SM, Drummond-Webb J (1985) Delayed post-traumatic cauda equina compression syndrome. J Trauma 25:1099–101

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bulloch L, Thompson K, Spector L (2022) Cauda equina syndrome. Orthop Clin North Am 53(2):247–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hunt N, Jennings A, Smith M (2002) Current management of U-shaped sacral fractures or spinopelvic dissociation. Injury 33:123–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Taguchi TKS, Kaneko K, Yugue D (1999) Operative management of displaced fractures of the sacrum. J Orthop Sci 4:347–352

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bellabarba C, Schildhauer A, Vaccaro AR, Chapman JR (2006) Complications associated with surgical stabilization of high-grade sacral fracture dislocations with spino-pelvic instability. Spine 31:S80–S88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nork SE, Jones CB, Harding SP, Mirza SK, Routt MLC Jr (2001) Percutaneous stabilization of U-shaped sacral fractures using iliosacral screws: technique and early results. J Orthop Trauma 15:238–246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Routt MCL Jr, Nork SE, Mills WJ (2000) Percutaneous fixation of pelvic ring disruptions. Clin Orthop Related Res 375:15–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Templeman DGJ, Duwelius P, Olson S, Davidson M (1996) Internal fixation of displaced fractures of the sacrum. Clin Orthop Related Res 329:180–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Schildhauer TAJC, Muhr G (1998) Triangular osteosynthesis of vertically unstable sacrum fractures: a new concept allowing early weight-bearing. J Orthop Trauma 12:307–314

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mouhsine E, Wettstein M, Schizas C et al (2006) Modified triangular osteosynthesis of unstable sacrum fractures. Eur Spine J 15:857–863

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ebraheim NA, Savolaine ER, Shapiro P, Houston T, Jackson WT (1991) Uni lateral lumbosacral facet dislocation associated with vertical shear frac- ture. J Orthop Trauma 5:498–503

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Schildhauer TALW, Chapman JR, Henley MB, Tencer AL, Routt MLC Jr (2003) Triangular osteosynthesis and iliosacral screw fixation for unstable sacral fractures: a cadaveric and biomechanical evaluation under cyclic loads. J Orthop Trauma 17:22–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. McCord DH, Cunningham BW, Shono Y, Myers JJ, McAfee PC (1992) Biomechanical analysis of lumbosacral fixation. Spine 17:S235–S243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Baldwin NG, Kern MB, Cahill DW (2008) Complex lumbosacropelvic fixation techniques. In: Benzel EC (ed) Spine surgery: techniques, complication avoidance, and management, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1576–1585

    Google Scholar 

  42. Schildhauer TAMP, Chapman JR, Mann FA (2002) Anatomic and radiographic considerations for placement of transiliac screws in lumbopelvic fixation. J Spinal Dis Tech 15:199–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dussa CU, Soni BM (2008) Influence of type of management of transverse sacral fractures on neurological outcome. A case series and review of literature. Spinal Cord 46:590–4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Fisher RG (1998) Sacral fracture with compression of cauda equina: surgical treatment. J Trauma. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005373-198812000-00013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ruatti S, Boudissa M, Kerschbaumer G, Milaire M, Tonetti J (2019) Effectiveness of closed reduction and percutaneous fixation of isolated sacral fractures. Functional outcomes and sagittal alignment after 3.6 years in 20 patients. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 105(4):719–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2019.02.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Barcellos ALL, da Rocha VM, Guimarães JAM (2017) Current concepts in spondylopelvic dissociation. Injury 48:S5-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(17)30789-

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ferris B, Hutton P (1983) Anteriorly displaced transverse fracture of the sacrum at the level of the sacro-iliac joint. J Bone Joint Surg 65:407–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Shah DS et al (2019) Minimally invasive lumbopelvic fixation for unstable U-type sacral fractures. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.5621

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Schroeder GD, Kurd MF, Kepler CK, Krieg JC, Wilson JR, Kleweno CP et al (2016) The development of a universally accepted sacral fracture classification: a survey of AOSpine and AOTrauma members. Glob Spine J 6(7):686–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Spector LR, Madigan L, Rhyne A, Darden B, Kim D (2008) Cauda equina syndrome. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16:471–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Srikandarajah N, Wilby M, Clark S, Noble A, Williamson P, Marson T (2018) Outcomes reported after surgery for cauda equina syndrome: a systematic literature review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43(17):E1005–E1013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Korse NS, Veldman AB, Peul WC, Vleggeert-Lankamp CLA (2017) The long term outcome of micturition, defecation and sexual function after spinal surgery for cauda equina syndrome. PLoS One 12:e0175987

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Burgess AR, Eastridge BJ, Young JWR, Ellison TS, Ellison PS, Poka A et al (1990) Pelvic ring disruptions: effective classification system and treatment protocols. J Trauma 30:848–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Guang Y, Wei C, Xu L, et al. Influences of lateral, front-rear and rotational displacements on injury to sacral nerves in fractures of sacral zone II. Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma . 2015;17:191–194.

  55. Lee J-H et al (2011) Delayed neurological insufficiency caused by transverse sacral fracture after minor trauma in elderly patients. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 51:427–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Toussirot E, Bereau M, Aubry S (2020) L5 radiculopathy with neurological deficit due to sacral insufficiency fracture. J Rheumatol 47(6):939–940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Kimura J (2001) Anatomy and physiology of the peripheral nerve. In: Electrodiagnosis in disease of nerve and muscle. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 63–91

    Google Scholar 

  58. Sutter M, Eggspuehler A, Muller A, Dvorak J (2007) “Multimodal intraoperative monitoring: an overview and proposal of methodology based on 1,017 cases. Society 16:153–161

    Google Scholar 

  59. Sutter M, Eggspuehler A, Jeszenszky D et al (2019) The impact and value of uni- and multimodal intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) on neurological complications during spine surgery: a prospective study of 2728 patients. Eur Spine J 28(3):599–610

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Tsirikos AI, Duckworth AD, Henderson LE, Michaelson C (2020) Multimodal intraoperative spinal cord monitoring during spinal deformity surgery: efficacy, diagnostic characteristics, and algorithm development. Med Princ Pract 29(1):6–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Porat M, Orozco F, Goyal N, Post Z, Ong A (2013) Neurophysiologic monitoring can predict iatrogenic injury during acetabular and pelvic fracture fixation. HSS J 9(3):218–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-013-9347-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Chau AM, Xu LL, Pelzer NR, Gragnaniello C (2014) Timing of surgical intervention in cauda equina syndrome: a systematic critical review. World Neurosurg 81:640–650

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Xie YL, Cai L, Ping AS, Lei J, Deng ZM, Hu C, Zhu XB (2018) Lumbopelvic fixation and sacral decompression for u-shaped sacral fractures: surgical management and early outcome. Curr Med Sci 38:684–690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Fehlings M, Tator C (1999) An evidence-based review of decompressive surgery in acute spinal cord injury: rationale, indications, and timing based on experimental and clinical studies. J Neurosurg Spine 91:1–11

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Vaccaro AR et al (2004) Diagnosis and management of sacral spine fractures. Instr Course Lect 53:375

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. La Rocca G, Mazzucchi E, Pignotti F, Nasto LA, Galieri G, Rinaldi P, De Santis V, Pola E, Sabatino G (2023) Navigated, percutaneous, three-step technique for lumbar and sacral screw placement: a novel, minimally invasive, and maximally safe strategy. J Orthop Traumatol 24(1):32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-023-00696-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Aprato A et al (2016) Direct and indirect costs of surgically treated pelvic fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2373-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Dussa CU et al (2008) Influence of type of management of transverse sacral fractures on neurological outcome. A case series and review of literature. Spinal Cord. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2008.59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None

Funding

No funding was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Università degli studi di Torino, Viale 25 Aprile 137 Int 6, 10133, Turin, Italy

    Alessandro Aprato, Alberto Balagna & Alessandro Massé

  2. APSS Trento, Trento, Italy

    Luigi Branca Vergano

  3. Università degli studi di Brescia, Brescia, Italy

    Alessandro Casiraghi & Lorenzo Sacchi

  4. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy

    Francesco Liuzza & Amarildo Smakaj

  5. ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Umberto Mezzadri, Federico Bove, Francesco Addevico, Pietro Domenico Giorgi & Giuseppe Rosario Schiro

  6. Università degli studi di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Lorenzo Prandoni

  7. Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

    Mohamed Rohayem

  8. Ospedale Sant’Eugenio di Roma, Rome, Italy

    Mario Arduini

  9. Policlinico Casilino di Roma, Rome, Italy

    Alessandro Are

  10. Ospedale Mazzoni di Ascoli, Ascoli Piceno, Italy

    Concetto Battiato

  11. Humanitas Research Hospital Rozzano, Rozzano, Italy

    Marco Berlusconi & Matteo Cavanna

  12. ASST degli spedali Civili di Brescia, Brescia, Italy

    Stefano Cattaneo & Claudio Galante

  13. ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII di Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy

    Federico Chiodini

  14. Ospedale Maggiore di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Matteo Commessatti

  15. Ospedale Civile Santo Spirito di Pescara, Pescara, Italy

    Rocco Erasmo

  16. Università degli studi di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

    Alberto Ferreli

  17. Ospedale Augusto Murri di Fermo, Fermo, Italy

    Federico Lamponi

  18. Università degli studi di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Alessandro Moghnie

  19. Università degli studi di Roma, ASST degli spedali Civili di Brescia, Brescia, Italy

    Michel Oransky

  20. Università degli studi di Bari, Bari, Italy

    Antonio Panella

  21. Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona/Università degli studi di Ancona, Ancona, Italy

    Raffaele Pascarella

  22. Università degli studi di Genova, Genoa, Italy

    Federico Santolini & Marco Stella

  23. Ospedale SS Antonio e Biagio di Alessandria, Alessandria, Italy

    Kristijan Zoccola

Authors
  1. Alessandro Aprato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luigi Branca Vergano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alessandro Casiraghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francesco Liuzza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Umberto Mezzadri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alberto Balagna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lorenzo Prandoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mohamed Rohayem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Lorenzo Sacchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Amarildo Smakaj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Mario Arduini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Alessandro Are
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Concetto Battiato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Marco Berlusconi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Federico Bove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Stefano Cattaneo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Matteo Cavanna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Federico Chiodini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Matteo Commessatti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Francesco Addevico
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Rocco Erasmo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Alberto Ferreli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Claudio Galante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Pietro Domenico Giorgi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Federico Lamponi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Alessandro Moghnie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  27. Michel Oransky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  28. Antonio Panella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Raffaele Pascarella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  30. Federico Santolini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  31. Giuseppe Rosario Schiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  32. Marco Stella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  33. Kristijan Zoccola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  34. Alessandro Massé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AA, BVL, CA, LF and MU: study conception and design, supervision. BA, PL, SL, SA: bibliography analysis, manuscript writing and revisions. MA, AA, CB, MB, FB, SC, MC, FC, MC, FA, RE, AF, CG, GPD, FL, AM, MO, AP, RP, FS, SGR, MS, KZ and AM: survey conception and contribution of important scientific knowledge, final approval.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Aprato.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study received a waiver from the ethical committee “Interaziendale A.O.U. Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino”. No patient was involved in this survey, and all the involved surgeons gave their consent to participate.

Consent for publication

All the authors gave their consent for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 1.

Table 1 Statement supported by the consensus
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aprato, A., Branca Vergano, L., Casiraghi, A. et al. Consensus for management of sacral fractures: from the diagnosis to the treatment, with a focus on the role of decompression in sacral fractures. J Orthop Traumatol 24, 46 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-023-00726-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-023-00726-2

Keywords