Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
186,546 studies31 sourcesUpdated 22 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Journal of Clinical Medicine

Operative Indications for Lateral Compression Type 1 Pelvic Ring Injuries: A Systematic Review of Reported Selection Criteria

  1. 1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Saeson Hospital, Daejeon 34908, Republic of Korea
  2. 2Department of Medical Sciences, Graduate School of Ajou University, Suwon 16499, Republic of Korea
  3. 3Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon 16499, Republic of Korea

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Lateral compression type 1 (LC-1) injuries range from stable patterns to injuries whose instability is not evident on initial imaging. How published studies define the criteria for operative fixation has not been characterized. Methods: We systematically reviewed studies reporting operative-selection criteria for LC-1 injuries. MEDLINE and Embase were searched (last update 14 August 2026) without date or language filters; English-language full text was required for eligibility, and dedicated fragility-fracture cohorts were excluded. Reports of the same or nested cohorts were linked into study-level units. Each unit was coded for indication category, assessment method, quantitative threshold, and selection-rule reconstructibility (whether the assessment, positive rule, and link to the operation could be reconstructed). A second clinician independently recoded three of these fields for all units. Registration (retrospective): OSF, 10.17605/OSF.IO/WSDGX. Results: Thirty-seven eligible reports contributed 29 study-level units. Selection was multifactorial in 15 units (51.7%), 16 (55.2%) used dynamic or stress assessment, and 18 (62.1%) reported a quantitative threshold, most often approximately 1 cm (10 units; 7 after collapsing four units from one institutional registry). Only 6 units (20.7%) met the prespecified definition of a fully reconstructible operative-selection rule. Of the remaining 23, two, by design, had no ascertainable clinical selection pathway; the other 21 all lacked a reconstructible positive rule (14 units), a clear criterion-to-treatment linkage (16), or both, whereas the assessment itself was non-reconstructible in only two. Inter-coder agreement for selection-rule reconstructibility was 89.7% (26/29). Conclusions: Operative indications for LC-1 injuries remain heterogeneous and incompletely operationalized. What to assess was almost always identifiable; reconstruction failed after it. Studies should report how instability is elicited, how a positive test is defined, and what that result caused.

Related

  1. Indications and outcomes of ventricular assist devices in children and young adults with neuromuscular diseases: A systematic review
    Valeria Salmè, Simona Imberti, Francesca Benedetti +8
    JHLT openPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textSurgery & anaesthesiaEurope PMC
  2. Surgeons in North America and Asia-Pacific Adopt Various Practices Regarding Surgical Indications, Graft Selection, and Imaging Assessment in Pediatric Patients With Patellofemoral Instability.
    Seth Ian Sim, Bo Xiang Bryan Neo, Daniel Green +2
    Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitationPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textSurgery & anaesthesiaEurope PMC
  3. Non-operative management in patients with iatrogenic colorectal perforations: protocol for a systematic review
    Taras Nechay, Alexandr Kuperin, Leonid Magnitsky +3
    Systematic ReviewsPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Surgery & anaesthesiaCrossref
  4. Operative management of abdominal bulge following deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction: a systematic review of repair strategies and outcomes
    Raj Saini, Akshay Soni, Felicity Huang +2
    Gland SurgeryPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  5. Local infiltration anesthesia (anterior field block) vs. general anesthesia for thyroidectomy: effects on operative time, complications, and cost—a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis with subgroup analysis
    Khadeeja Ali Hamzah, Hassan H. Eladl, Shehab Elfiqi +6
    Frontiers in surgeryPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textSurgery & anaesthesiaEurope PMC
BibTeX
@article{lee2026operative,
  title = {{Operative Indications for Lateral Compression Type 1 Pelvic Ring Injuries: A Systematic Review of Reported Selection Criteria}},
  author = {Jaeheon Lee and Hyung Keun Song},
  journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.3390/jcm15207891},
  url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/7891},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Operative Indications for Lateral Compression Type 1 Pelvic Ring Injuries: A Systematic Review of Reported Selection Criteria
AU  - Jaeheon Lee
AU  - Hyung Keun Song
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/01
JO  - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO  - 10.3390/jcm15207891
UR  - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/7891
AB  - Background/Objectives: Lateral compression type 1 (LC-1) injuries range from stable patterns to injuries whose instability is not evident on initial imaging. How published studies define the criteria for operative fixation has not been characterized. Methods: We systematically reviewed studies reporting operative-selection criteria for LC-1 injuries. MEDLINE and Embase were searched (last update 14 August 2026) without date or language filters; English-language full text was required for eligibility, and dedicated fragility-fracture cohorts were excluded. Reports of the same or nested cohorts were linked into study-level units. Each unit was coded for indication category, assessment method, quantitative threshold, and selection-rule reconstructibility (whether the assessment, positive rule, and link to the operation could be reconstructed). A second clinician independently recoded three of these fields for all units. Registration (retrospective): OSF, 10.17605/OSF.IO/WSDGX. Results: Thirty-seven eligible reports contributed 29 study-level units. Selection was multifactorial in 15 units (51.7%), 16 (55.2%) used dynamic or stress assessment, and 18 (62.1%) reported a quantitative threshold, most often approximately 1 cm (10 units; 7 after collapsing four units from one institutional registry). Only 6 units (20.7%) met the prespecified definition of a fully reconstructible operative-selection rule. Of the remaining 23, two, by design, had no ascertainable clinical selection pathway; the other 21 all lacked a reconstructible positive rule (14 units), a clear criterion-to-treatment linkage (16), or both, whereas the assessment itself was non-reconstructible in only two. Inter-coder agreement for selection-rule reconstructibility was 89.7% (26/29). Conclusions: Operative indications for LC-1 injuries remain heterogeneous and incompletely operationalized. What to assess was almost always identifiable; reconstruction failed after it. Studies should report how instability is elicited, how a positive test is defined, and what that result caused.
SN  - 2077-0383
ER  -