Search

Patients with unstable hemodynamics and unstable pelvic ring injuries are still demanding patients regarding initial treatment and survival. Several concepts were reported during the last 30 years. Mechanical stabilization of the pelvis together with hemorrhage control offer the best treatment option in these patients. While pelvic ring stabilization using pelvic binders, external fixators and the pelvic C-clamp are the basis for mechanical stability of the pelvic ring, the optimal modality for pelvic bleeding control is still under discussion. Beside angioembolization (AE) and Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA), pelvic packing PP (predominantly extraperitoneal) with direct access to the pelvic bleeding sources, are potential options. The present overview represents the present status, results and the value of pelvic packing in treating these patients. Interpretation of these results must consider the difference between the initial European concept of pelvic ring stabilization followed by PP in contrast to the North American concept with a reduced rate of pelvic ring stabilizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adequate intraoperative visualization is mandatory for implant application in pelvic ring injuries. Several fluoroscopic X-ray views are in practical use. The gold standard primary X-ray is the anteroposterior view of the pelvis. In addition to this view, oblique views for pelvic ring instabilities and acetabular fractures are well defined. Combinations of these views allow better identification of osseous corridors for screw applications. These corridors are based on the 3-ring concept of the hemipelvis. For pelvic ring stabilization the main osseous corridors include the retrograde and antegrade superior ramus/anterior column corridor, the supraacetabular corridor and the gluteus medius pillar corridor. The radiographic anatomy of these corridors is described in detail for screw applications with definition of image intensifier angulations, risk zones and corridor parameters. This allows for intraoperative safe implant application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The today well accepted intrapelvic approach for acetabular and pelvic ring injury fixation was first described by Hirvensalo and Lindahl in 1993 followed by a more detailed description by Cole and Bolhofner in 1994. Compared to the well-known ilioinguinal approach, described by Letournel, this approach allows an intrapelvic view to the medial acetabulum, while using the ilioinguinal approach a more superior, extrapelvic view, is dissected to the area of the acetabulum. Several names have been used to describe the new intrapelvic approach with increasing usage, mainly ilio-anterior approach, extended Pfannenstiel approach, Stoppa-approach, Rives-Stoppa approach, modified Stoppa approach and recently anterior intrapelvic approach. Especially names including “Stoppa”, based on the French surgeon Rene Stoppa, an inguinal hernia surgeon, have been discussed. In contrast to the presently used intrapelvic approach, the original the Rives-Stoppa approach refers to a sublay-retromuscular technique, which places a mesh posterior to the rectus muscle and anterior to the posterior rectus sheath without dissecting along the upper pubic ramus. Thus, intrapelvic approach is not a Rives-Stoppa approach. The Cheatle-Henry approach, another inguinal hernia approach, refers best to the presently used intrapelvic approach. Discussing the anatomy and the different dissections, this approach allows anteromedial access to the anterior column and a direct view from inside the true pelvis to the quadrilateral plate and medial side of the posterior column. Thus, we favor to use the term “Intrapelvic Approach”. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Impactions of the articular surface are relevant prognostic parameters in the treatment of acetabular fractures. Posterior marginal impactions and acetabular dome impactions may occur depending on the direction of the force vectors during trauma. Posterior marginal impactions are mainly observed in posterior fracture dislocations, while acetabular dome impactions are frequently seen in the elderly with the hip joint in extension during trauma. Femoral head impactions are also frequently associated with acetabular fractures, mainly in fracture dislocations and transverse acetabular fractures. CT scans using thin slices are mandatory in order to preoperatively identify acetabular and femoral head impactions. Intraoperatively, the reduction techniques depend on the type of marginal impaction. Posterior impactions are usually addressed via a posterior approach by applying femoral traction under direct visualization or even by performing surgical hip dislocation. Acetabular dome impactions may be reduced using the fracture lines or by creating a cortical window. Reduction is followed by filling the void with bone or bone substitutes supported by raft screws. No clear treatment recommendations for femoral head impactions are given in the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the last two decades, extended scientific interest focused on quadrilateral plate (QLP) fractures as part of common acetabular fractures. The QLP corresponds to the medial wall of the acetabulum, and different fracture pattern of Letournel´s fracture types are associated with concomitant QLP fractures. Except anterior and posterior wall fractures, all other fracture types may be associated with QLP fractures. QLP fracture features include simple fracture lines up to highly comminuted fractures. A detailed preoperative analysis of these fractures is important to get a better understanding of intraoperative decision making. No consensus exists regarding the optimal classification and treatment of QLP fractures. Various operative approaches and treatment concepts exists depending on the specific QLP fracture type and the acetabular fracture type. Several new implants were development for optimal but often individual stabilization concepts. The gold-standard is still some medial buttressing during internal fixation predominantly using plates, but also screw fixation is considered an option. Additional dome impactions must be considered as an integral part in any QLP fracture analysis and stabilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Outcome evaluation is of major importance to provide data to analyze the value of the chosen treatment concept. Despite an increasing effort of analyzing outcome after treatment of different pelvic ring injuries, a mixture of different outcome parameters is in use. The Majeed score is most frequently used for mid- to long-term evaluation and the quality of life is analyzed using the SF-36 score. The lack in nearly all studies is that different treatment concepts are used, and only selected evaluation parameters are reported. Until today, no well-accepted standardized measurement instruments are available to analyze the clinical and radiological results after pelvic ring injuries. Overall, stability-based long-term sequelae can be expected with increasing complaints from stable type A injuries to completely unstable type C injuries. Beside a fracture-type specific treatment, concomitant injuries of other injury regions and associated local pelvic injuries (complex pelvic trauma) seem to additionally influence the results. Results of treatment of specific fracture types are sparse as a wide range of different injury types and different treatment concepts are analyzed within these analyses. A sufficient pelvic outcome instrument which addresses relevant pelvic outcome parameters is still missing. Thus, future evaluation of long-term results after pelvic ring. injuries should include prospective, multicenter outcome studies with comparable parameters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) is at risk during the posterior and lateral approaches to the proximal radius. We aimed to define a safe zone for these approaches to avoid injury of the PIN and to evaluate their close and changing relationship to the nerve during forearm rotation.Methods: The study collective consisted of 50 upper limbs. After performance of the lateral approach, the distance between the tip of the radial head and the PIN’s exit point from the supinator (= distance 1) and the shortest interval between the nerve’s exit to the radial margin of the ulna (= distance 2) were measured in maximum pronation and supination. Then, the dorsal approach was conducted and again distance 1 and the interval between the distal margin of the anconeus and the nerve’s exit point (distance 2) were evaluated (pronation and supination).Results: There were significantly shorter distances during supination in comparison to pronation. Regarding the lateral approach, distance 1 changed from a mean of 60.3 mm (supination) to 62.7 mm in pronation (p < 0.001). For the dorsal approach, distance 1 decreased significantly (p < 0.001) from 62.9 mm (pronation) to 60.2 mm (supination).Conclusion: Supination during the lateral and dorsal approaches to the proximal radius needs to be avoided to protect the PIN. Furthermore, the nerve appeared at an interval between 45 and 84.1 mm (lateral approach) and 47.5-93.8 mm (dorsal approach), respectively. Therefore, care must be taken at this height during extension of the approaches in a distal direction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a clinical review of postural stability assessment through Balance Error Scoring System (BESS) and Sensory Organization Test (SOT). Study evaluated postural sway or balance in concussed athletes of any age and found that both tests helps in monitoring balance performance in the concussed athlete.

Background and Purpose: Acetabular fractures are often combined with associated injuries to the hip joint. Some of these associated injuries seem to be responsible for poor long-term results and these injuries seem to affect the outcome independent of the quality of the acetabular reduction. The aim of our study was to analyze the outcome of both column acetabular fractures and the influence of osseous cofactors such as initial fracture displacement, hip dislocation, femoral head lesions and injuries of the acetabular joint surface. Methods: A retrospective cohort study in patients with both column acetabular fractures treated over a 30 year period was performed. Patients with a follow-up of more than two years were invited for a clinical and radiological examination. Displacement was analyzed on initial and postoperative radiographs. Contusion and impaction of the femoral head was grouped. Injuries of the acetabular joint surface consisting of impaction, contusion and comminution were recorded. The Merle d'Aubigné Score was documented and radiographs were analysed for arthritis (Helfet classification), femoral head avascular necrosis (Ficat/Arlet classification) and heterotopic ossifications (Brooker classification). Results: 115 patients were included in the follow up examination. Anatomic reduction (malreduction = 1mm) was associated with a significantly better clinical outcome than nonanatomical reduction (p = 0.001). Initial displacement of more than 10mm (p = 0.031) and initial intraarticular fragments (p = 0.041) were associated with worse outcome. Other associated injuries, such as the presence of a femoral head dislocation, femoral head injuries and injuries to the acetabular joint surface showed no significant difference in outcome individually, but in fractures with more than two associated local injuries the risk for joint degeneration was significant higher (p < 0.001) than in cases with less than two of them. In the subgroup of anatomically reconstructed fractures no significant influence of the analyzed cofactors could be observed. Conclusion: Anatomical reduction appears to be an important parameter for a good clinical outcome in patients with both column acetabular fractures. Additional fracture characteristics such as the initial displacement and intraarticular fragments seem to influence the results. Patients should also be advised that both column acetabular fractures with more than two additional associated factors have a significantly higher risk of joint degeneration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]