• Pol M Rommens, Christian Ossendorf, Philip Pairon, Sven-Oliver Dietz, Daniel Wagner, and Alexander Hofmann.
• Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg-University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany, pol.rommens@unimedizin-mainz.de.
• J Orthop Sci. 2015 Jan 1; 20 (1): 1-11.

AbstractFragility fractures of the pelvic ring (FFP) are increasing in frequency and require challenging treatment. A new comprehensive classification considers both fracture morphology and degree of instability. The classification system also provides recommendations for type and invasiveness of treatment. In this article, a literature review of treatment alternatives is presented and compared with our own experiences. Whereas FFP Type I lesions can be treated conservatively, FFP Types III and IV require surgical treatment. For FFP Type II lessions, percutaneous fixation techniques should be considered after a trial of conservative treatment. FFP Type III lesions need open reduction and internal fixation, whereas FFP Type IV lesions require bilateral fixation. The respective advantages and limitations of dorsal (sacroiliac screw fixation, sacroplasty, bridging plate fixation, transsacral positioning bar placement, angular stable plate) and anterior (external fixation, angular stable plate fixation, retrograde transpubic screw fixation) pelvic fixations are described.

13 keywords...

hide…