Objective To explore the advantage of reconstruction belt for treating complicated acetabular fracture by combined anterior and posterior approaches through the comparison with reconstruction plate. Methods A retrospective analysis was made on the clinical data of 39 patients with acetabular fractures who met the selection criteria. After open reduction by combined anterior and posterior approaches was performed, fracture was fixed by reconstruction belt in 20 cases (trial group), and by reconstruction plate in 19 cases (control group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, cause of injury, time from injury to hospital, type of fracture, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score between 2 groups (P > 0.05). The number of plate shaping, plate shaping time, operation time, bleeding amount, perspective times, VAS score, modified Merled’Aubigne-Postel hip score, and related complications were recorded and compared. According to Matta standard, the fracture displacement was measured to evaluate the fracture reduction and fracture healing. Results The number of plate shaping, plate shaping time, operation time, bleeding amount, and perspective times in the trial group were significantly less than those in the control group (P < 0.05). The patients were followed up 12-29 months (mean, 21.1 months) in the trial group, and 12-27 months (mean, 20.5 months) in the control group. The VAS score was significantly lower at 7 days and 6 months after operation than at pre-operation, and at 6 months than at 7 days in 2 groups (P < 0.05), but difference was not significant between 2 groups (P > 0.05). At 6 months after operation, the Merled’Aubigne-Postel score of hip function in the trial group was 15.950±1.504, showing no significant difference when compared with the control group (15.895±1.629) (t= -0.110, P=0.913). The fracture displacement was (0.750±1.070) mm in the trial group and was (0.842±1.068) mm in the control group, showing no significant difference (t= -0.269, P=0.789). The X-ray films showed that all fractures healed in 2 groups. The healing time was (16.10±2.07) weeks in the trial group and was (15.84±2.14) weeks in the control group, showing no significant difference (t =0.382, P=0.075). Conclusion Reconstruction belt for complicated acetabular fracture by combined anterior and posterior approaches has similar effectiveness to reconstruction plate, but the number of plate shaping, plate shaping time, and perspective times are fewer.