• S C Herath, M F R Rollmann, T Histing, J H Holstein, and T Pohlemann.
• Klink für Unfall-, Hand und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Kirrberger Str. 100, 66421, Homburg/Saar, Deutschland. Steven.Herath@uks.eu.
• Chirurg. 2017 Feb 1; 88 (2): 105-109.

AbstractPeriprosthetic acetabular fractures in geriatric patients are rare injuries; however, the incidence is increasing because of the current demographic developments. For diagnosis of periprosthetic acetabular fractures, conventional X‑ray images are regularly complemented by computed tomography (CT). For exclusion of loosening of the prosthesis more advanced techniques, such as single photon emission CT (SPECT/CT) are applied. In addition to classification of periprosthetic acetabular fractures by the traditional system of Letournel there are several other classification systems, which take into account the etiology of the fracture and the stability of the prosthesis. While, under certain circumstances conservative treatment of periprosthetic acetabular fractures is possible, operative treatment often requires extensive surgical procedures to restore the stability of the acetabulum as a support for the cup of the prosthesis. Besides the traditional techniques of acetabular osteosynthesis, special revision systems, augmentations and allografts are used for the reconstruction of periprosthetic acetabular fractures. To determine a therapeutic regimen patient-specific preconditions as well as fracture pattern and type of prosthesis need to be taken into account. In the literature there are several algorithms, which are aimed at supporting the attending physician in making the correct decision for the treatment of periprosthetic acetabular fractures. In cases of periprosthetic acetabular fractures even experienced surgeons are faced with great challenges. Thus, treatment should be carried out in specialized centers.

17 keywords...

hide…