| Literature DB >> 32734382 |
Pol Maria Rommens1, Roland Schwab2, Kristin Handrich2, Charlotte Arand2, Daniel Wagner2, Alexander Hofmann3.
Abstract
MATERIAL AND METHODS: There is an ongoing debate on which treatment for acetabular fractures in elderly patients is the most appropriate. This study was set up to identify the role of open reduction and internal fixation of acetabular fractures in persons of old age. We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts and radiological data of all patients older than 65 years, who suffered an isolated acetabular fracture and were admitted in our Department between 2010 and 2014 (5-year period). Complications, outcome and mortality were recorded. Of all surviving patients, quality of life (QoL), mobility and independence were graded with European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level (EQ-5D-3L), European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-5D-VAS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Elderly Mobility Scale (EMS) and Tinetti Mobility Test (TMT).Entities:
Keywords: Acetabulum; Complications; Fracture; Open reduction internal fixation; Outcome; Radiologic parameters
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32734382 PMCID: PMC7584535 DOI: 10.1007/s00264-020-04672-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Orthop ISSN: 0341-2695 Impact factor: 3.075
Demographic data
| Total | Operative | Conservative | |
| Number of patients (%) | 70 (100) | 46 (100) | 24 (100) |
| Age in years: median (range) | 79 (65–104) | 77 (65–92) | 81 (73–104) |
| Mortality: no (%) | 18 (26) | 12 (26) | 6 (25) |
| No (%) | No (%) | No (%) | |
| Surviving patients | 52 (100) | 34 (100) | 18 (100) |
| Drop-out of surviving | 23 (44) | 8 (23) | 15 (83) |
| Remaining for evaluation | 29 (56) | 26 (77) | 3 (17) |
Classification of fractures
| All study patients | Follow-up patients with operative treatment | |
|---|---|---|
| No (%) | No (%) | |
| All patients | 70 (100) | 26 (100) |
| Anterior column, posterior hemitransverse | 26 (37) | 12 (46) |
| Both column | 25 (36) | 7 (27) |
| Anterior column | 10 (14) | 4 (15) |
| Anterior wall | 2 (2.9) | - |
| Posterior wall | 2 (2.9)` | 1 (3.8) |
| Posterior column | 2 (2.9) | - |
| T-type | 2 (2.9) | 2 (7.7) |
| Posterior column, posterior wall | 1 (1.4) | - |
Choice of approaches
| Operatively treated patients | Follow-up patients with operative treatment | |
|---|---|---|
| No (%) | No (%) | |
| All patients | 46 (100) | 26 (100) |
| Ilioinguinal | 36 (78) | 22 (85) |
| Kocher-Langenbeck | 4 (8.7) | 1 (3.8) |
| Intra pelvic and lateral window | 3 (6.5) | 2 (7.7) |
| Intra pelvic | 2 (4.3) | 1 (3.8) |
| Iliofemoral | 1 (2.2) | – |
In-hospital complications
| Total | Operative | Conservative |
|---|---|---|
| No (%) | No (%) | |
| Number of patients | 46 (100) | 24 (100) |
| Pneumonia | 7 (15) | 6 (25) |
| Urinary tract infection | 4 (8.7) | 5 (21) |
| Decubitus | 3 (6.5) | 1 (4.2) |
| Deep wound infection | 1 (2.2) | - |
| Pulmonary embolism | 1 (2.2) | - |
Fig. 1Kaplan-Meier curves of cumulative patient survival during 5-year follow-up depending on type of treatment
Negative predictive factors and quality of reduction
| Operated patients | Follow-up patients with operative treatment | |
|---|---|---|
| No (%) | No (%) | |
| All patients | 46 (100) | 26 (100) |
| Gull sign | 7 (15) | 5 (19) |
| Additional subchondral impaction | 6 (13) | 5 (19) |
| Indentation of femoral head | 6 (13) | 3 (12) |
| Fragment comminution | 2 (4.3) | 1 (3.8) |
| Anatomical reduction | 27 (59) | 11 (42) |
| Not anatomical, acceptable | 18 (39) | 14 (54) |
| Poor reduction | 1 (2.2) | 1 (3.8) |
Fig. 2Kaplan-Meier curve of cumulative hip joint survival during 5-year follow-up of the patients with imperfect and poor reduction. In 27 patients with anatomical reduction, no secondary THA was performed
Comparison between patients without and with conversion to total hip arthroplasty
| Patients without conversion ( | Patients with conversion ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Median follow-up time in months (range) | 30 (16–73) | 39 (30–60) |
| Median follow-up time after conversion in months (range) | - | 30 (17–55) |
| EQ-5D Index Value, mean (SD) | 0.82 (0.25) | 0.75 (0.15) |
| EQ-5D VAS, median (range, IQR) | 70 (35–85, 65–76) | 62 (35–87, 50–64) |
| NRS, mean (SD) | 2.3 (1.5) | 3.4 (19) |
| TUG, mean (SD) | 18.7 (7.4) | 24.9 (12.6) |
| EMS, mean (SD) | 17 (2.5) | 14.8 (4.6) |
| TMT, mean (SD) | 24.7 (3.7) | 20.8 (7.3) |