| Literature DB >> 35162298 |
Emilia Dadura1, Aleksandra Truszczyńska-Baszak1, Dariusz Szydłowski2.
Abstract
(1) Fracture of the pelvis usually happens in young men and results from high-energy trauma. It generates high social and economic costs and results in further health problems. It is therefore important to assess long-term treatment results. (2) The study (NCT04902209) involved 31 patients (mean age 43.6 ± 14.8 years). We conducted fixation assessment on the basis of radiographs and CT scans and functional assessment based on functional scales. (3) We observed more degenerative changes in the less precise reconstruction of the acetabulum (p = 0.075). We did not find statistically significant relationships between the area of surgical approach, the gravity of fracture, and the development of degenerative changes. We did not find statistically significant relationships between patients' functional states and the type of surgical approach or the complexity of the fracture. We found a positive correlation between the time of surgical treatment and patients' functional state (p = 0.04). Patients whose joint surfaces were reconstructed anatomically had significantly higher scores in functional scales (HHS p = 0.05, Merle p = 0.03). (4) Patients after surgical fixation of the acetabulum have low functional abilities. The quality of reconstruction of the loaded surface as well as the length of time post-surgery seems to be essential for the patients' functional state.Entities:
Keywords: HHS; Merle d’Aubigne Scale; ORIF; acetabulum fractures; functional assessment; pelvic
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35162298 PMCID: PMC8834738 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19031277
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Degenerative changes progression (the arrow—the fracture fissure): (a) acetabular fracture (March 2012); (b) degenerative changes (April 2015); (c) hip arthroplasty (June 2015).
Number of types of fractures according to Judet’s criteria.
| Group | Type of Fracture | Number (No.) | ∑ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simple | posterior wall | 9 | 17 |
| posterior column | 3 | ||
| anterior wall | 1 | ||
| anterior column | 2 | ||
| transversal | 2 | ||
| Complex | posterior column and posterior wall | 3 | 14 |
| both columns | 10 | ||
| T-shaped | 1 |
Patients’ functional state—norms.
| Scale | Study Population | Functional State—Norms [ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| SD | Poor | Fair | Good | Excellent | |
| HHS [points] | 68.9 | 16.3 | <70 | 70–79 | 80–89 | 90–100 |
| Merle [points] | 12.0 | 2.8 | <13 | 13–14 | 15–17 | 18 |
Pain intensity according to the HHS.
| Pain—HHS |
|
|---|---|
| None, or ignores it | 3 |
| Slight, occasional, no compromise in activity | 11 |
| Mild pain, no effect on average activities, rarely moderate pain with unusual activity, may take aspirin | 11 |
| Moderate pain, tolerable but makes concessions to pain. Some limitations of ordinary activity or work. May require occasional pain medication stronger than aspirin | 3 |
| Marked pain, serious limitation of activities | 1 |
| Totally disabled, crippled, pain in bed, bedridden | 0 |
Figure 2Hip range of motion according to HHS.
Functional state and the reduction of the fracture.
| Reduction of Fracture | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anatomical | Imperfect | ||||
| Scale |
| SD |
| SD | |
| HHS (points) | 73.74 | 15.26 | 61.33 | 15.53 | 0.05 * |
| MERLE (points) | 12.95 | 2.50 | 10.58 | 2.81 | 0.03 * |
* The statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.