Advertisement

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 138, Issue 9, pp 1223–1234 | Cite as

Outcomes are equivalent for two-column acetabular fractures either with or without posterior-wall fractures

  • Byung-Woo Min
  • Kyung-Jae Lee
  • Jae-Won Jung
  • Gyo-Wook Kim
  • Kwang-Soon Song
  • Ki-Cheor Bae
  • Si-Wook Lee
Trauma Surgery

Abstract

Introduction

It is likely that posterior-wall involvement in association with two-column fractures plays a pivotal role in outcomes because of the potential for hip instability if it is not anatomically reduced and fixed. Uncertainty remains about how this fracture is best treated, especially regarding how posterior-wall involvement may affect functional results.

Materials and methods

To better understand the role that posterior-wall involvement may play in determining functional results, we compared data for outcomes for patients with posterior-wall involvement and for those without in a consecutive series of two-column fractures. Between 2000 and 2013, 42 patients who underwent surgical treatment for two-column acetabular fractures were evaluated after a minimum follow-up period of 1 year. Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively evaluated. Of the 42 patients, 25 had only a two-column fracture (group 1) and 17 had a two-column fracture with posterior-wall involvement (group 2).

Results

There were no differences between groups in terms of reduction accuracy, radiographic results, clinical results, or complication rates. All hips in patients with internal fixation for the associated posterior-wall fracture had anatomical reduction. At the latest follow-up evaluation, three patients from group 1 (without posterior-wall involvement) and three patients from group 2 (with posterior-wall involvement) had undergone total hip arthroplasty.

Conclusion

These results suggest that a posterior-wall fracture in a two-column fracture does not compromise functional outcomes when the treatment algorithm discussed here is followed.

Keywords

Acetabulum Two-column fracture Posterior-wall fracture Ilioinguinal approach 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Medical editor Katharine O’Moore-Klopf, ELS (East Setauket, NY, USA) provided professional English-language editing of this article.

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article had obtained approval of the Medical Center’s Institutional Review Board.

References

  1. 1.
    Letournel E (1980) Acetabulum fractures: classification and management. Clin Orthop Relat Res 151:81–106Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Iselin LD, Wahl P, Studer P, Munro JT, Gautier E (2013) Associated lesions in posterior wall acetabular fractures: not a valid predictor of failure. J Orthop Traumatol 14:(3):179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tannast M, Najibi S, Matta JM (2012) Two to twenty-year survivorship of the hip in 810 patients with operatively treated acetabular fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(17):1559–1567CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Judet R, Judet J, Letournel E (1964) Fractures of the acetabulum: classification and surgical approaches for open reduction. Preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 46:1615–1646CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matta JM (1996) 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 78(11):1632–1645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55(8):1629–1632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ficat RP (1985) Idiopathic bone necrosis of the femoral head. Early diagnosis and treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 67(1):3–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tile M (2003) Describing the injury: classification of acetabular fractures. In: Tile M, Helfet D, Kellam J (eds) Fractures of the pelvis and acetabulum, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD, pp 427–475Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larson CB (1973) Fracture dislocations of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res May (92):147–154Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Letournel E, Judet RL (1993) Associated both-column fractures. English edition: Letournel E, Judet RL (eds) Fractures of the acetabulum (trans: Elson RA), 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 253–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Matta JM (1994) Operative treatment of acetabular fractures through the ilioinguinal approach. A 10-year perspective. Clin Orthop Relat Res Aug (305):10–19Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keith JE Jr, Brashear HR Jr, Guilford WB (1988) Stability of posterior fracture-dislocations of the hip. Quantitative assessment using computed tomography. J Bone Joint Surg Am 70(5):711–714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moed BR, Ajibade DA, Israel H (2009) Computed tomography as a predictor of hip stability status in posterior wall fractures of the acetabulum. J Orthop Trauma 23(1):7–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gorczyca JT, Powell JN, Tile M (1995) Lateral extension of the ilioinguinal incision in the operative treatment of acetabulum fractures. Injury 26(3):207–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Routt ML Jr, Swiontkowski MF (1990) Operative treatment of complex acetabular fractures. Combined anterior and posterior exposures during the same procedure. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72(6):897–904CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mears DC, MacLeod MD (2003) Acetabular fracture: TRI and MTRI approaches. In: Tile M, Helfet D, Kellam J (eds) Fractures of the pelvis and acetabulum, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD, pp 585–588Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of MedicineKeimyung UniversityDaeguSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations