• Eur J Orthop Surg Tr · Apr 2014

    Outcome of unstable isolated fractures of the posterior acetabular wall associated with hip dislocation.

    • L de Palma, A Santucci, A Verdenelli, M G Bugatti, L Meco, and M Marinelli.
    • Orthopaedic Department, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy, meco_leonard@yahoo.it.
    • Eur J Orthop Surg Tr. 2014 Apr 1; 24 (3): 341-6.

    BackgroundTraumatic hip dislocation with fracture of the posterior acetabular wall is associated with high rates of residual invalidity.MethodsThe records of patients who underwent surgical treatment of traumatic dislocation of the hip associated with an isolated fracture of the posterior acetabular wall from 1999 to 2009 were reviewed. There were 30 men and 12 women, who at the time of the trauma had a mean age of 42 years (range 21-65). Mean follow-up duration was 5 years (range 2-10). Pre-operative fracture evaluation was based on the classification of Judet et al. which divided this fractures into three types: type 1 is characterized by a single fracture line separating a single bone fragment from the remaining part of the posterior wall; type 2 fracture involves several fragments of the posterior wall and in type 3, a type 1 or type 2 fracture is associated with a sunk cancellous area in the acetabular wall medial to the fracture line but not affected by it, due to the shear impact of the femoral head at the time of dislocation. Clinical evaluation of the outcome was according to the criteria of Merle D'Aubigné and Postel as modified by Matta. Outcomes were divided into excellent/good and fair/poor. Since treatment was standard, data were further analyzed to assess the relative importance of age, sex, follow-up duration, sciatic nerve lesion on admission and mechanism of injury, using the Chi-square test.ResultsFull clinical recovery without sequelae or radiographic abnormalities was achieved by 10 patients, 8 with type 1 fracture and 2 with type 2 fracture. A good outcome was seen in 13 patients, 3 with type 1 fracture, 9 with type 2 fracture and 1 with type 3 fracture. Eight patients, 3 with type 2 fracture and 5 with type 3 fracture, had a fair outcome. Only follow-up ≥6 years influenced outcome significantly (p > 0.005).ConclusionOur conclusions in light of our experience are that in type 1 lesions, anatomical reduction and stabilization achieve excellent outcomes, both clinical and radiographic; type 2 fractures pose greater prognostic problems because their outcome is determined by the success of the reduction and fixation of a multi-fragment fracture; finally, different considerations apply to type 3 fractures, which present varying degrees of comminution and an impacted acetabular surface: their outcome depends on the quality of the anatomical and morphological restoration of acetabular congruence.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…