Open Versus Minimally Invasive Fixation for Unstable Sacral Fractures in Adults

Severe injuries to the lower spine and pelvis, known as traumatic unstable sacral fractures, are complex injuries that often require surgery to stabilize the bones and prevent long-term disability. A standard surgical treatment is lumbopelvic fixation, which uses metal screws and rods to connect the lower spine to the pelvic bones. This procedure can be performed using a traditional open surgical approach with a larger incision, or a minimally invasive approach using smaller incisions. While both methods are used to effectively stabilize the fracture, there is a need for more comprehensive data comparing which approach provides the best overall recovery with the fewest complications. The purpose of this retrospective study is to compare the long-term outcomes of adult patients who underwent open lumbopelvic fixation versus those who had minimally invasive lumbopelvic fixation. Researchers will review the medical records and imaging of patients treated between January 2016 and December 2024. The main goal of the study is to evaluate physical function and recovery using a standardized assessment tool called the Majeed Pelvic Score. Additionally, the study will compare the two surgical groups to look at: * Bone healing: How well the bones aligned and healed over time. * Surgical complications: Rates of wound infections, skin issues, or hardware failures (like broken screws). * Clinical recovery: Improvement in nerve function (for those who had pre-existing deficits) and post-surgery back pain levels. * Quality of life: How quickly patients were able to return to work and perform their jobs efficiently. * Secondary surgeries: The need for any additional operations following the initial fix. By comparing these two approaches comprehensively, researchers hope to help surgeons identify the optimal surgical method tailored to a patient's specific fracture characteristics.