Predictors of Poor Outcome After Both Column Acetabular Fractures: a 30-year Retrospective Cohort Study

Overview

Journal Patient Saf Surg

Publisher Biomed Central

Date 2013 Mar 21

PMID 23510122

Citations 18

Authors

Philipp Lichte

Richard M Sellei

Philipp Kobbe

Derek G Dombroski

Axel Gansslen

Hans-Christoph Pape

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background And Purpose: Acetabular fractures are often combined with associated injuries to the hip joint. Some of these associated injuries seem to be responsible for poor long-term results and these injuries seem to affect the outcome independent of the quality of the acetabular reduction. The aim of our study was to analyze the outcome of both column acetabular fractures and the influence of osseous cofactors such as initial fracture displacement, hip dislocation, femoral head lesions and injuries of the acetabular joint surface.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study in patients with both column acetabular fractures treated over a 30 year period was performed. Patients with a follow-up of more than two years were invited for a clinical and radiological examination. Displacement was analyzed on initial and postoperative radiographs. Contusion and impaction of the femoral head was grouped. Injuries of the acetabular joint surface consisting of impaction, contusion and comminution were recorded. The Merle d'Aubigné Score was documented and radiographs were analysed for arthritis (Helfet classification), femoral head avascular necrosis (Ficat/Arlet classification) and heterotopic ossifications (Brooker classification).

Results: 115 patients were included in the follow up examination. Anatomic reduction (malreduction ≤ 1mm) was associated with a significantly better clinical outcome than nonanatomical reduction (p = 0.001). Initial displacement of more than 10mm (p = 0.031) and initial intraarticular fragments (p = 0.041) were associated with worse outcome. Other associated injuries, such as the presence of a femoral head dislocation, femoral head injuries and injuries to the acetabular joint surface showed no significant difference in outcome individually, but in fractures with more than two associated local injuries the risk for joint degeneration was significant higher (p < 0.001) than in cases with less than two of them.In the subgroup of anatomically reconstructed fractures no significant influence of the analyzed cofactors could be observed.

Conclusion: Anatomical reduction appears to be an important parameter for a good clinical outcome in patients with both column acetabular fractures. Additional fracture characteristics such as the initial displacement and intraarticular fragments seem to influence the results. Patients should also be advised that both column acetabular fractures with more than two additional associated factors have a significantly higher risk of joint degeneration.

Citing Articles

Treatment of Two-column Acetabular Fractures by Double Extrapelvic Approach: Three Clinical Cases.

Boavida J, Ribeiro P, Costa P, Quintas C, Moura D, Figueiredo A Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo). 2024; 59(3):e479-e484.

PMID: 38911883 PMC: 11193574. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1729934.

Combined anatomical reduction plate for quadrilateral acetabular fractures via a posterior approach: an anatomical-morphological study.

Chongshuai B, Xuhang Y, Li H, Qingshuang Y, Lin C, Jun A BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024; 25(1):417.

PMID: 38807120 PMC: 11135013. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07522-x.

A review of Risk Factors for Post-traumatic hip and knee osteoarthritis following musculoskeletal injuries other than anterior cruciate ligament rupture.

Castano Betancourt M, Maia C, Munhoz M, Morais C, Machado E Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2022; 14(4):38747.

PMID: 36349350 PMC: 9635990. DOI: 10.52965/001c.38747.

Fixation of bilateral acetabular fractures using the modified Stoppa approach: Two-year clinical outcomes.

Can F, Kilinc R, Gultac E, Kilinc C, Sahin I Jt Dis Relat Surg. 2022; 33(3):624-630.

PMID: 36345191 PMC: 9647675. DOI: 10.52312/jdrs.2022.858.

Both-Column Acetabular Fractures: Should Pelvic Ring Reduction or Acetabulum be Performed First?.

Wan Y, Yu K, Xu Y, Ma Y, Zeng L, Zhang Z Orthop Surg. 2022; 14(11):2897-2903.

PMID: 36148520 PMC: 9627054. DOI: 10.1111/os.13493.

References

Bhandari M, Matta J, Ferguson T, Matthys G . Predictors of clinical and radiological outcome in patients with fractures of the acetabulum and concomitant posterior dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88(12):1618-24. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B12.17309. View

Matta J . Fractures of the acetabulum: accuracy of reduction and clinical results in patients managed operatively within three weeks after the injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996; 78(11):1632-45. View

Ovre S, Madsen J, Roise O . Acetabular fracture displacement, roof arc angles and 2 years outcome. Injury. 2008; 39(8):922-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2007.12.006. View

Pantazopoulos T, Nicolopoulos C, Babis G, Theodoropoulos T . Surgical treatment of acetabular posterior wall fractures. Injury. 1993; 24(5):319-23. DOI: 10.1016/0020-1383(93)90055-b. View

Rommens P . [Acetabulum fractures]. Unfallchirurg. 1999; 102(8):589-90. DOI: 10.1007/s001130050454. View

Aho A, Isberg U, Katevuo V . Acetabular posterior wall fracture. 38 cases followed for 5 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 1986; 57(2):101-5. DOI: 10.3109/17453678609000878. View

Deo S, Tavares S, Pandey R, Willett K, Worlock P . Operative management of acetabular fractures in Oxford. Injury. 2001; 32(7):581-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-1383(00)00200-x. View

Matta J, LETOURNEL E, Browner B . Surgical management of acetabular fractures. Instr Course Lect. 1986; 35:382-97. View

de Ridder V, de Lange S, Kingma L, Hogervorst M . Results of 75 consecutive patients with an acetabular fracture. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994; (305):53-7. View

10.

Ragnarsson B, Mjoberg B . Arthrosis after surgically treated acetabular fractures. A retrospective study of 60 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 1992; 63(5):511-4. DOI: 10.3109/17453679209154725. View

11.

Fenzl G, Fischer G, Galle P . [Acetabular fractures--surgical versus conservative treatment]. Unfallchirurgie. 1990; 16(5):230-5. DOI: 10.1007/BF02589875. View

12.

LETOURNEL E . Acetabulum fractures: classification and management. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980; (151):81-106. View

13.

Mears D, Velyvis J, Chang C . Displaced acetabular fractures managed operatively: indicators of outcome. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003; (407):173-86. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200302000-00026. View

14.

Rommens P, Ingelfinger P, Nowak T, Kuhn S, Hessmann M . Traumatic damage to the cartilage influences outcome of anatomically reduced acetabular fractures: a medium-term retrospective analysis. Injury. 2011; 42(10):1043-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.03.058. View

15.

Murphy D, Kaliszer M, Rice J, McElwain J . Outcome after acetabular fracture. Prognostic factors and their inter-relationships. Injury. 2003; 34(7):512-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0020-1383(02)00349-2. View

16.

Lotz M, Kraus V . New developments in osteoarthritis. Posttraumatic osteoarthritis: pathogenesis and pharmacological treatment options. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010; 12(3):211. PMC: 2911903. DOI: 10.1186/ar3046. View

17.

Saterbak A, Marsh J, Nepola J, Brandser E, Turbett T . Clinical failure after posterior wall acetabular fractures: the influence of initial fracture patterns. J Orthop Trauma. 2000; 14(4):230-7. DOI: 10.1097/00005131-200005000-00002. View

18.

Chiu F, Lo W, Chen T, Chen C, Huang C, Ma H . Fractures of posterior wall of acetabulum. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1996; 115(5):273-5. DOI: 10.1007/BF00439052. View

19.

Heeg M, Oostvogel H, Klasen H . Conservative treatment of acetabular fractures: the role of the weight-bearing dome and anatomic reduction in the ultimate results. J Trauma. 1987; 27(5):555-9. View

20.

Moed B, WillsonCarr S, Watson J . Results of operative treatment of fractures of the posterior wall of the acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84(5):752-8. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200205000-00008. View