Table 2. Regional analysis of the survey results.
| Yes responses, n (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | Asia Pacific (n = 77) | Europe (n = 197) | Latin/South America (n = 89) | Middle East (n = 49) | North America (n = 58) | p Valuea |
| Do you think that the appropriate order for sacral fracture severity from least to most severe is transverse fractures, unilateral vertical fractures, and fractures that lead to spinopelvic instability? | 66 (85.7) | 173 (87.8) | 77 (86.5) | 38 (77.6) | 54 (93.1) | 0.204 |
| In an isolated vertical fracture of the sacrum, do you agree that the risk of neurologic injury is highest in a vertical fracture through the foramen and lowest in a vertical fracture medial to the foramen? | 63 (81.8) | 162 (82.2) | 70 (78.7) | 35 (71.4) | 36 (62.1) | 0.014 |
| Do you think the integrity of the L5–S1 facet is adequately considered if a unilateral vertical fracture where the ipsilateral superior S1 facet is discontinuous with the medial portion of the sacrum is considered differently from a fracture where the ipsilateral superior S1 facet is in continuity with the medial portion of the sacrum? | 67 (87.0) | 164 (83.2) | 77 (86.5) | 34 (69.4) | 52 (89.7) | 0.039 |
| Do you think a nondisplaced sacral U fracture that may be seen in low-energy insufficiency fractures is a clinically relevant entity that deserves its own spot in the classification? | 66 (85.7) | 162 (82.2) | 72 (80.9) | 40 (81.6) | 53 (91.4) | 0.449 |
Note: Due to extremely low frequencies, Africa was not included in the comparison.
a
Chi-square test.