Florian Gras1, Ivan Marintschev, Lars Grossterlinden, Markus Rossmann, Isabel Graul, Gunther O Hofmann, Johannes M Rueger, Wolfgang Lehmann. 1. *Department of Trauma-, Hand- and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany; †Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery; Pelvic Center, University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf, UKE, Germany; ‡Department of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, Klinikum Bergmannstrost Halle, Germany; and §Department of Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedics and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Anatomical acetabular plates the anterior intrapelvic approach (AIP) were recently introduced to fix acetabular fractures through the intrapelvic approach. Therefore, we asked the following: (1) Does the preshaped 3-dimensional suprapectineal plate interfere with or even impair the fracture reduction quality? (2) How often does the AIP approach need to be extended by the first (lateral) window of the ilioinguinal approach? DESIGN: Observational case series. SETTING: Two Level 1 trauma centers. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Patients with unstable acetabular fractures in 2014. INTERVENTION: Fracture fixation with anatomical-preshaped, 3-dimensional suprapectineal plates through the AIP approach ± the first window of the ilioinguinal approach. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Fracture reduction results were measured in computed tomography scans and graded according to the Matta quality of reduction. Intraoperative parameters and perioperative complications were recorded. Radiological results (according to Matta) and functional outcome (modified Merle d'Aubigné score) were evaluated at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty patients (9 women + 21 men; mean age ± SE: 64 ± 8 years) were included. The intrapelvic approach was solely used in 19 cases, and in 11 cases, an additional extension with the first window of the ilioinguinal approach (preferential for 2-column fractures) was performed. The mean operating time was 202 ± 59 minutes; the fluoroscopic time was 66 ± 48 seconds. Fracture gaps and steps in preoperative versus postoperative computed tomography scans were 12.4 ± 9.8 versus 2.0 ± 1.5 and 6.0 ± 5.5 versus 1.3 ± 1.7 mm, respectively. At 13.4 ± 2.9 months follow-up, the Matta grading was excellent in 50%, good in 25%, fair in 11%, and poor in 14% of cases. The modified Merle d'Aubigné score was excellent in 17%, good in 37%, fair in 33%, and poor in 13% of cases. CONCLUSION: The AIP approach using approach-specific instruments and an anatomical-preshaped, 3-dimensional suprapectineal plate became the standard procedure in our departments. Radiological and functional early results justify joint preserving surgery in most cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
OBJECTIVES: Anatomical acetabular plates the anterior intrapelvic approach (AIP) were recently introduced to fix acetabular fractures through the intrapelvic approach. Therefore, we asked the following: (1) Does the preshaped 3-dimensional suprapectineal plate interfere with or even impair the fracture reduction quality? (2) How often does the AIP approach need to be extended by the first (lateral) window of the ilioinguinal approach? DESIGN: Observational case series. SETTING: Two Level 1 trauma centers. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Patients with unstable acetabular fractures in 2014. INTERVENTION: Fracture fixation with anatomical-preshaped, 3-dimensional suprapectineal plates through the AIP approach ± the first window of the ilioinguinal approach. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Fracture reduction results were measured in computed tomography scans and graded according to the Matta quality of reduction. Intraoperative parameters and perioperative complications were recorded. Radiological results (according to Matta) and functional outcome (modified Merle d'Aubigné score) were evaluated at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty patients (9 women + 21 men; mean age ± SE: 64 ± 8 years) were included. The intrapelvic approach was solely used in 19 cases, and in 11 cases, an additional extension with the first window of the ilioinguinal approach (preferential for 2-column fractures) was performed. The mean operating time was 202 ± 59 minutes; the fluoroscopic time was 66 ± 48 seconds. Fracture gaps and steps in preoperative versus postoperative computed tomography scans were 12.4 ± 9.8 versus 2.0 ± 1.5 and 6.0 ± 5.5 versus 1.3 ± 1.7 mm, respectively. At 13.4 ± 2.9 months follow-up, the Matta grading was excellent in 50%, good in 25%, fair in 11%, and poor in 14% of cases. The modified Merle d'Aubigné score was excellent in 17%, good in 37%, fair in 33%, and poor in 13% of cases. CONCLUSION: The AIP approach using approach-specific instruments and an anatomical-preshaped, 3-dimensional suprapectineal plate became the standard procedure in our departments. Radiological and functional early results justify joint preserving surgery in most cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: Maximilian J Hartel; Tareq Naji; Florian Fensky; Frank O Henes; Darius M Thiesen; Wolfgang Lehmann; Karl-Heinz Frosch; Dimitris Ntalos Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 2.928
Authors: Florian Baumann; Paul Schmitz; Daniel Mahr; Maximilian Kerschbaum; Axel Gänsslen; Michael Nerlich; Michael Worlicek Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Viola Freigang; Maximilian Gottsauner; Markus Rupp; Christian Pfeifer; Stephan Grechenig; Alexander Kerner; Volker Alt; Florian Baumann Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-07-26 Impact factor: 3.411