Literature DB >> 31528065

Surgical treatment of acetabulum posterior wall fractures: Comparison between undercountering and marginal impaction reconstruction method with odd methods.

Emre Gültaç1, Serkan İltar1, Ahmet Özmeriç1, Aykut Koçak1, Nevres Hürriyet Aydoğan2, Kadir Bahadır Alemdaroğlu1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Modern treatment principles for posterior wall fractures have become widespread in the last decade in many countries by means of international or local courses. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of acetabulum posterior wall fractures using unconventional methods of fixation, including plates placed in unusual directions, or, in the case of reoperation, only interfragmentary screws. In addition, we examined acetabulum posterior wall fractures treated by open reduction and internal fixation with standard undercountered plates from ischion to iliac bone in latter cases.
METHODS: Twenty-one patients who had open reduction and internal fixation of an unstable unilateral fracture of the posterior wall of the acetabulum between 2009 and 2013 were included. Group 1 was composed of 10 former patients who were treated with unconventional methods that included a compression technique with a direct plate or solely screw fixation. Group 2 was composed of latter 11 patients who were treated with standard surgery that included undercountered plates oriented from the ischial tuberosity to the iliac bone proximally and reconstruction of marginal impaction if necessary. The functional outcome was evaluated with the use of the clinical grading system adopted by Merle d'Aubigné and Postel. The Kellgren-Lawrence radiologic criteria were used for the radiologic assessments. The reduction of the fracture, posterior dislocation, marginal impaction, mean fracture particle amount, trochanteric osteotomy and avascular necrosis were compared between the two groups and examined with the Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS: In Groups 1 and 2, the median score of the modified Merle d'Aubigné and Postel clinical scoring system was 16 (8-18) and 18 (14-18), respectively. The clinical scores between the two groups were statistically significant (p < 0.01). When two groups were compared using the Kellgren-Lawrence radiographic criteria for the development of osteoarthritis, the median value in Groups 1 and 2 was 3 (0-4) and 1 (0-3), respectively (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: This study displays the evolution of the surgical treatment of acetabular fractures of the posterior wall in our clinic. The older methods failed in terms of exposure, diagnosis of fracture anatomy and fixation techniques. Patients treated after the surgeons took courses in this field showed evidence of superior clinical and radiological scores. We attribute these benefits to exposure, definition and treatment of marginal impaction and fixation principles.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acetabular fracture; Acetabulum; Posterior column; Radiographic

Year:  2019        PMID: 31528065      PMCID: PMC6738499          DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.01.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0976-5662


  12 in total

Review 1.  Displaced acetabular fractures: indications for operative and nonoperative management.

Authors:  P Tornetta
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.020

2.  Outcomes of posterior wall fractures of the acetabulum. Surgical technique.

Authors:  Berton R Moed; Jessica C McMichael
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Acetabular fractures labelled poor surgical choices: Analysis of operative outcome.

Authors:  Ravi Kumar Gupta; Nipun Jindal; Manish Pruthi
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2015-03-21

4.  An interactive surgical planning tool for acetabular fractures: initial results.

Authors:  Jürgen Fornaro; Marius Keel; Matthias Harders; Borut Marincek; Gábor Székely; Thomas Frauenfelder
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 5.  Operative treatment of displaced fractures of the acetabulum. A meta-analysis.

Authors:  P V Giannoudis; M R W Grotz; C Papakostidis; H Dinopoulos
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-01

6.  Predictors of clinical and radiological outcome in patients with fractures of the acetabulum and concomitant posterior dislocation of the hip.

Authors:  M Bhandari; J Matta; T Ferguson; G Matthys
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2006-12

7.  Fractures of the acetabulum in patients aged 60 years and older: an epidemiological and radiological study.

Authors:  T A Ferguson; R Patel; M Bhandari; J M Matta
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2010-02

8.  Outcome after acetabular fracture. Prognostic factors and their inter-relationships.

Authors:  D Murphy; M Kaliszer; J Rice; J P McElwain
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.586

9.  Displaced acetabular fractures managed operatively: indicators of outcome.

Authors:  Dana C Mears; John H Velyvis; Chih-Peng Chang
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Acetabular fractures with marginal impaction: mid-term results.

Authors:  P V Giannoudis; N K Kanakaris; E Delli Sante; D J Morell; D Stengel; N Prevezas
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 5.082

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Sciatic nerve injury after acetabular fractures: a meta-analysis of incidence and outcomes.

Authors:  Ioannis M Stavrakakis; Evangelos I Kritsotakis; Peter V Giannoudis; Petros Kapsetakis; Rozalia Dimitriou; Johannes D Bastian; Theodoros H Tosounidis
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 2.374

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.