Advertisement

Spine Surgery pp 299-308 | Cite as

Sacral Fractures

  • Ulas YildizEmail author
  • Frank Kandziora
Chapter

Abstract

Sacral fractures have historically been an overlooked entity due to their heterogeneous nature. Furthermore they are complex in nature and pose diagnostic challenges and technical difficulties for treatment. They can be differentiated into traumatic (70%) and atraumatic (approx. 30%) etiology. Since the world’s older population continues to grow at an unprecedented rate, in nearby future the ratio will change in favor of atraumatic fractures (e.g. sacral insufficiency fractures). The traumatic sacral fracture is the result of a severe high-energy trauma and typically part of a pelvic ring injury. Such high forces lead to damage and disruption of the soft tissue surrounding the pelvis. In contrast the atraumatic fracture occurs in the form of an osteoporotic or insufficiency fracture without a history of trauma. Therefore multiple injuries are rare in these patients. These characteristics make it necessary to differentiate in planning the operative care. Numerous classification systems and the lack of valid therapeutic algorithm lead to a case by case decisions in treatment, depending on the local organizational structures (orthopedics, neurosurgeons or/and trauma surgeons).

References

  1. 1.
    Denis F, Davis S, Comfort T. Sacral fractures: an important problem. Retrospective analysis of 236 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;227:67–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Gagna G, Mazel C. Transverse fracture of the upper sacrum. Suicidal jumper’s fracture. Spine. 1985;10(9):838–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellabarba C, Stewart JD, Ricci WM, et al. Midline sagittal sacral fractures in anterior—posterior compression pelvic ring injuries. J Orthop Trauma. 2003;17(1):32–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rodrigues-Pinto R, Kurd MF, Schroeder GD, et al. Sacral fractures and associated injuries. Global Spine J. 2017;7(7):609–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellabarba C, Schroeder GD, Kepler CK, et al. The AOSpine sacral fracture classification. Global Spine J. 2016;6(1_suppl):s-0036-1582696-s-0036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rommens PM, Hofmann A. Comprehensive classification of fragility fractures of the pelvic ring: recommendations for surgical treatment. Injury. 2013;44(12):1733–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Linstrom NJ, Heiserman JE, Kortman KE, et al. Anatomical and biomechanical analyses of the unique and consistent locations of sacral insufficiency fractures. Spine. 2009;34(4):309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gotis-Graham I, McGuigan L, Diamond T, et al. Sacral insufficiency fractures in the elderly. Bone Joint J. 1994;76(6):882–6.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ries T. Detection of osteoporotic sacral fractures with radionuclides. Radiology. 1983;146(3):783–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zentrum für Wirbelsäulenchirurgie und Neurotraumatologie, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt am MainFrankfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations