Sacroiliac complex injuries are commonly seen in high-energy pelvic fractures. The injuries make a big difference in treatment patterns due to the diverse injury types, posing considerable challenges in formulating optimal treatment strategies, and hence are persistent clinical difficulties in orthopedic trauma. The clinical management of sacroiliac complex injuries presents several key challenges such as a non-negligible rate of missed diagnoses in associated vascular and visceral injuries, absence of standardized protocols for surgical approaches and reduction-fixation strategies across different injury patterns, and ongoing controversies regarding surgical indications and optimal timing for patients combined with concomitant lumbosacral plexus injuries. Currently, no systematic clinical guidelines are available for the diagnosis and treatment of sacroiliac complex injuries both domestically and internationally. To this end, the Pelvic and Acetabular Surgery Group, Orthopedic Branch, China International Exchange and Promotive Association for Medical and Health Care and Orthopedic Physician Branch, Chinese Medical Doctor Association organized a panel of domestic experts in the field to develop the Clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of sacroiliac complex injuries ( version 2025), based on evidence-based medicine and adhering to the principles of scientific rigor, clinical applicability, and innovation. These guidelines provided 11 recommendations covering diagnosis, therapeutic principles and techniques, management protocols for lumbosacral plexus injuries, outcome evaluation, and postoperative rehabilitation pathways, etc., aiming to standardize the clinical management of sacroiliac complex injuries.

Sacroiliac complex injuries are commonly seen in high-energy pelvic fractures. The injuries make a big difference in treatment patterns due to the diverse injury types, posing considerable challenges in formulating optimal treatment strategies, and hence are persistent clinical difficulties in orthopedic trauma. The clinical management of sacroiliac complex injuries presents several key challenges such as a non-negligible rate of missed diagnoses in associated vascular and visceral injuries, absence of standardized protocols for surgical approaches and reduction-fixation strategies across different injury patterns, and ongoing controversies regarding surgical indications and optimal timing for patients combined with concomitant lumbosacral plexus injuries. Currently, no systematic clinical guidelines are available for the diagnosis and treatment of sacroiliac complex injuries both domestically and internationally. To this end, the Pelvic and Acetabular Surgery Group, Orthopedic Branch, China International Exchange and Promotive Association for Medical and Health Care and Orthopedic Physician Branch, Chinese Medical Doctor Association organized a panel of domestic experts in the field to develop the Clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of sacroiliac complex injuries ( version 2025), based on evidence-based medicine and adhering to the principles of scientific rigor, clinical applicability, and innovation. These guidelines provided 11 recommendations covering diagnosis, therapeutic principles and techniques, management protocols for lumbosacral plexus injuries, outcome evaluation, and postoperative rehabilitation pathways, etc., aiming to standardize the clinical management of sacroiliac complex injuries.

Accurate classification of the acetabular injuries and appropriate treatment plan are great challenges for orthopedic surgeons because of the irregular anatomical structure of the acetabulum and aggregation of important vessels and nerves around it. Letournel-Judet classification system has been widely applied to classify acetabular fractures. However, there are several limitations, including incomplete inclusion of fracture types, difficulty in understanding and insufficient guidance for surgical treatment, etc. Serious complications such as traumatic arthritis are common due to wrong classification and diagnosis and improper selection of surgical strategy, which brings a heavy burden to the society and families. Three-column classification, based on anatomic characteristics, has advantages of containing more fracture types and being easy to understand, etc. To solve the problems existing in the diagnosis and treatment process based on Letournel-Judet classification, achieve accurate diagnosis and treatment of patients with acetabular fractures, and obtain satisfactory prognosis, the Orthopedic Trauma Emergency Center of Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University and the Trauma Orthopedic Branch of the Chinese Orthopedic Association organized experts from relevant fields to formulate the Expert consensus on the accurate diagnosis and treatment of acetabular fractures based on three-column classification ( version 2023) in terms of principles of evidence-based medicine. Based on the three-column classification, 15 recommendations were proposed, covering the diagnosis, treatment, complication prevention and management, etc, so as to provide reference for accurate diagnosis and treatment of acetabular fractures.

Drug induced liver injury (DILI) may be different in the East compared to the West due to differing disease prevalence, prescribing patterns and pharmacogenetic profiles. To review existing literature on causative agents of DILI in the East compared to the West, a comprehensive literature search was performed on electronic databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure without language restrictions. Studies which involve patients having DILI and reported the frequency of causative agents were included. A random effects model was applied to synthesize the current evidence using prevalence of class-specific and agent-specific causative drugs with 95% confidence intervals. Of 6,914 articles found, 12 showed the distribution of drugs implicated in DILI in the East with a total of 33,294 patients and 16 in the West with a total of 26,069 DILI cases. In the East, the most common agents by class were anti-tuberculosis drugs (26.6%), herbal and alternative medications (25.3%), and antibiotics (15.7%), while in the West, antibiotics (34.9%), cardiovascular agents (17.3%), and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (12.5%) were the commonest. For individual agents, the most common agents in the East were isoniazid-rifampicin-pyrazinamide (25.4%), phenytoin (3.5%), and cephalosporin (2.9%) while in the West, amoxicillin-potassium clavulanate combination acid (11.3%), nimesulide (6.3%), and ibuprofen (6.1%) were the commonest. There was significant heterogeneity due to variability in single-centre compared to multi-centre studies. Differences in DILI in the East versus the West both in drug classes and individual agents are important for clinicians to recognize.