Brian P McCormick1, Joseph Serino2, Sebastian Orman3, Alex R Webb4, David X Wang5, Amin Mohamadi6, Sharri Mortensen6, Michael J Weaver7,8, Arvind Von Keudell7,8. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, 201 E. University Parkway, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA. Brian.p.mccormick1@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 6. Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Harvard Orthopaedic Trauma Initiative, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The treatment of geriatric acetabular fractures remains controversial. Treatment options include nonoperative management, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), total hip arthroplasty (THA) with or without internal fixation, and closed reduction with percutaneous pinning (CRPP). There is currently no consensus on the optimal treatment strategy for geriatric patients with acetabular fractures. The purpose of this study is to compare adverse event rates, functional and radiographic outcomes, and intraoperative results between the various treatment modalities in order to help guide surgical decision making. METHODS: We performed a systematic review (registration number CRD42019124624) of observational and comparative studies including patients aged ≥ 55 with acetabular fractures. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies including 3,928 patients with a mean age of 72.6 years (range 55-99 years) and a mean follow-up duration of 29.4 months met our eligibility criteria. The pooled mortality rate of all patients was 21.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.9-22.4%) with a mean time to mortality of 12.6 months, and the pooled non-fatal complication rate was 24.7% (95% CI 23.9-25.5%). Patients treated with ORIF had a significantly higher non-fatal complication rate than those treated with ORIF + THA, THA alone, CRPP, or nonoperative management (odds ratios [ORs] 1.87, 2.24, 2.15, and 4.48, respectively; p < 0.01). Patients that underwent ORIF were significantly less likely to undergo subsequent THA than these treated with CRPP (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.77) but were more likely to require THA than patients treated nonoperatively (OR 6.81, 95% CI 4.63-10.02). CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with acetabular fractures tend to have favorable functional outcomes but suffer from high rates of mortality and complications. In patients treated with internal or percutaneous fixation, there was a high rate of conversion to THA. When determining surgical treatment in this population, THA alone or concurrent with ORIF should be considered given the significantly lower rate of non-fatal complications and similar mortality rate. Nonoperative management remains a viable option and was associated with the lowest non-fatal complication rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
PURPOSE: The treatment of geriatric acetabular fractures remains controversial. Treatment options include nonoperative management, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), total hip arthroplasty (THA) with or without internal fixation, and closed reduction with percutaneous pinning (CRPP). There is currently no consensus on the optimal treatment strategy for geriatric patients with acetabular fractures. The purpose of this study is to compare adverse event rates, functional and radiographic outcomes, and intraoperative results between the various treatment modalities in order to help guide surgical decision making. METHODS: We performed a systematic review (registration number CRD42019124624) of observational and comparative studies including patients aged ≥ 55 with acetabular fractures. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies including 3,928 patients with a mean age of 72.6 years (range 55-99 years) and a mean follow-up duration of 29.4 months met our eligibility criteria. The pooled mortality rate of all patients was 21.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.9-22.4%) with a mean time to mortality of 12.6 months, and the pooled non-fatal complication rate was 24.7% (95% CI 23.9-25.5%). Patients treated with ORIF had a significantly higher non-fatal complication rate than those treated with ORIF + THA, THA alone, CRPP, or nonoperative management (odds ratios [ORs] 1.87, 2.24, 2.15, and 4.48, respectively; p < 0.01). Patients that underwent ORIF were significantly less likely to undergo subsequent THA than these treated with CRPP (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.77) but were more likely to require THA than patients treated nonoperatively (OR 6.81, 95% CI 4.63-10.02). CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with acetabular fractures tend to have favorable functional outcomes but suffer from high rates of mortality and complications. In patients treated with internal or percutaneous fixation, there was a high rate of conversion to THA. When determining surgical treatment in this population, THA alone or concurrent with ORIF should be considered given the significantly lower rate of non-fatal complications and similar mortality rate. Nonoperative management remains a viable option and was associated with the lowest non-fatal complication rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Authors: Eben A Carroll; Florian G Huber; Ariel T Goldman; Walter W Virkus; Eric Pagenkopf; Dean G Lorich; David L Helfet Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Joshua L Gary; Ebrahim Paryavi; Steven D Gibbons; Michael J Weaver; Jordan H Morgan; Scott P Ryan; Adam J Starr; Robert V OʼToole Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Joshua L Gary; Kelly A Lefaivre; Frank Gerold; Michael T Hay; Charles M Reinert; Adam J Starr Journal: Injury Date: 2010-09-20 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Julia Riemenschneider; Jan Tilmann Vollrath; Nils Mühlenfeld; Johannes Frank; Ingo Marzi; Maren Janko Journal: EFORT Open Rev Date: 2022-05-31