Kensuke Hotta1, Takaomi Kobayashi2,3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Karatsu Red Cross Hospital, 2430 Watada, Karatsu, Saga, 847-8588, Japan. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Karatsu Red Cross Hospital, 2430 Watada, Karatsu, Saga, 847-8588, Japan. takaomi_920@yahoo.co.jp. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Saga University, 5-1-1 Nabeshima, Saga, 849-8501, Japan. takaomi_920@yahoo.co.jp.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We propose a functional treatment strategy for fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) in geriatric patients; patients with such fractures normally undergo 10 days of conservative therapy with full-weight bearing within pain limits. Conservative therapy for FFP is continued for patients who can stand with assistance, and surgical stabilization is recommended for patients with difficulty in auxiliary standing at 10 day postadmission. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of functional treatment between geriatric patients with FFP type I/II and those with FFP type III/IV, as described by Rommens et al. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 84 geriatric patients who underwent functional treatment for FFP. Based on the results of the first examination, the patients were allocated to the following FFP types: type I/II (n = 53) and type III/IV (n = 31). Change in functional mobility scale described by Graham et al. from before injury to the final follow-up were compared between the groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the functional mobility scale (0.25 ± 0.70 vs. 0.23 ± 0.56, p = 0.889) between FFP type I/II and FFP type III/IV. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of the functional treatment for FFP for the geriatric patients did not differ significantly between the radiographic classifications. Functional treatment could, therefore, be a treatment option for almost all radiographic types of FFP, especially for geriatric patients. Further investigations are warranted.
PURPOSE: We propose a functional treatment strategy for fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) in geriatric patients; patients with such fractures normally undergo 10 days of conservative therapy with full-weight bearing within pain limits. Conservative therapy for FFP is continued for patients who can stand with assistance, and surgical stabilization is recommended for patients with difficulty in auxiliary standing at 10 day postadmission. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of functional treatment between geriatric patients with FFP type I/II and those with FFP type III/IV, as described by Rommens et al. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 84 geriatric patients who underwent functional treatment for FFP. Based on the results of the first examination, the patients were allocated to the following FFP types: type I/II (n = 53) and type III/IV (n = 31). Change in functional mobility scale described by Graham et al. from before injury to the final follow-up were compared between the groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the functional mobility scale (0.25 ± 0.70 vs. 0.23 ± 0.56, p = 0.889) between FFP type I/II and FFP type III/IV. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of the functional treatment for FFP for the geriatric patients did not differ significantly between the radiographic classifications. Functional treatment could, therefore, be a treatment option for almost all radiographic types of FFP, especially for geriatric patients. Further investigations are warranted.
Entities:
Keywords:
Conservative treatment; Fragility fractures of the pelvis; Functional treatment strategy; Geriatric patient
Authors: Josephine Berger-Groch; Darius M Thiesen; Lars G Grossterlinden; Jan Schaewel; Florian Fensky; Maximilian J Hartel Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Roman M Natoli; Harold A Fogel; Daniel Holt; Adam Schiff; Mitchell Bernstein; Hobie D Summers; William Lack Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Georg Osterhoff; Jonas Noser; Ulrike Held; Clément M L Werner; Hans-Christoph Pape; Michael Dietrich Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Dietmar Krappinger; Verena Kaser; Christian Kammerlander; Carl Neuerburg; Anke Merkel; Richard A Lindtner Journal: Injury Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Paul Schmitz; Florian Baumann; Stephan Grechenig; Axel Gaensslen; Michael Nerlich; Michael B Müller Journal: Injury Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Pol M Rommens; Christian Ossendorf; Philip Pairon; Sven-Oliver Dietz; Daniel Wagner; Alexander Hofmann Journal: J Orthop Sci Date: 2014-10-17 Impact factor: 1.601
Authors: Thomas Mendel; Bernhard W Ullrich; Philipp Schenk; Gunther Olaf Hofmann; Felix Goehre; Stefan Schwan; Florian Brakopp; Friederike Klauke Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2022-10-18 Impact factor: 2.374
Authors: Mehdi Boudissa; Geoffrey Porcheron; Daniel Wagner; Frank Traub; George Farah; Pol Maria Rommens Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Pol Maria Rommens; Alexander Hofmann; Sven Kraemer; Miha Kisilak; Mehdi Boudissa; Daniel Wagner Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 2.374