What this Trial Is About

Pelvic ring fractures are fractures associated with high morbidity and mortality. When the fracture is displaced, surgical management to achieve reduction and fixation of the anterior and posterior annulus is the current reference. The optimal technique that gives the best results is controversial. Open reductions and internal fixations (ORIFs) are associated with more blood loss and a higher rate of infection, while closed reductions and percutaneous fixations (CRPF) are associated with more screw misplacements and thus vascular or nerve damage. The results appear to be similar in the literature between the two approaches Surgery for pelvic ring fractures has become increasingly common over the past three decades Recovery is often delayed for weeks post-surgery, depending on the center. Modern management emphasizes early rehabilitation, including early mobility and weight-bearing, when possible. Increasing the number of screws, their diameter and length, and systematically fixing both anterior and posterior lesions add safety for early reloading The aim of the study is The main objective of the study is to evaluate the clinical outcome associated with early weight-bearing in patients operated on for a pelvic ring fracture in a large cohort of patients at Grenoble University Hospital, compared to patients operated on for the same type of pelvic ring fracture with delayed weight-bearing. The investigator hypothesize that early weight-bearing of pelvic ring fractures with biomechanically stable fixation does not result in significant differences in clinical outcomes at a minimum of one year compared to patients with delayed weight-bearing

Weight-bearing of Patients After Pelvic Ring Fracture