Minimally invasive surgical treatment of minimally displaced acetabular fractures does not improve pain, mobility or quality of life compared to conservative treatment: a matched-pair analysis of 50 patients.
Acetabulum
/ injuries
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Conservative Treatment
/ trends
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Fracture Fixation, Internal
/ trends
Fractures, Bone
/ diagnosis
Humans
Male
Matched-Pair Analysis
Middle Aged
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
/ trends
Mobility Limitation
Pain Measurement
/ trends
Quality of Life
Range of Motion, Articular
/ physiology
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Acetabular fracture
Conservative therapy
Long-term outcome
Minimally invasive technique
Risk factors
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
ISSN: 1749-799X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Surg Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265112
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Mar 2020
23 Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
22
11
2019
accepted:
17
02
2020
entrez:
16
4
2020
pubmed:
16
4
2020
medline:
30
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Currently available procedures for the treatment of minimally displaced acetabular fractures include conservative treatment and minimally invasive percutaneous screw fixation. Screw fixation of acetabular fractures allows patients' early full-weight bearing due to improved biomechanic stability. Can the range of motion, pain and mobility and quality of life in patients with acetabular fractures be improved by minimally invasive screw fixation, compared to conservative treatment in the long term? Patients treated for a minimally displaced acetabular fracture, either conservatively or by closed reduction percutaneous screw fixation, in the period from 2001 to 2013 were included in this retrospective study. Minimal displacement was considered to be less than 5 mm. As well as the collection and analysis of baseline data, Harris Hip Score, Merle d'Aubigné score and Short Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire data were recorded in the context of a clinical study. To better account for confounding factors, patients of each group were matched. The matched-pair criteria included age, BMI, Letournel fracture classification and the presence of associated injuries. Twenty-five patients from each group were matched. On the Harris Hip Score, conservatively treated patients obtained 96 points (52-100, SD 17) vs. 89 points (45-100, SD 17, p = 0.624). On the Merle d'Aubigné score, conservatively treated patients obtained 17 points (10-18, SD 2) vs. 17 points (11-18, SD 2, p = 0.342). Patients with acetabular fractures treated by minimally invasive screw fixation did not result in improved quality of life, measured by SF-12 questionnaire, compared to conservatively treated patients (PCS 47, SD 9 vs. 44, SD 10; p = 0.294 and MCS 51, SD 7 vs. 53, SD 7; p = 0.795). The clinical results of the two groups revealed no statistically significant differences. From the data, it cannot be deduced that minimally invasive surgical therapy is superior to conservative treatment of minimally displaced acetabular fractures. Prospective randomised studies are recommended to allow reliable evaluation of both treatment options. Retrospectively registered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Currently available procedures for the treatment of minimally displaced acetabular fractures include conservative treatment and minimally invasive percutaneous screw fixation. Screw fixation of acetabular fractures allows patients' early full-weight bearing due to improved biomechanic stability. Can the range of motion, pain and mobility and quality of life in patients with acetabular fractures be improved by minimally invasive screw fixation, compared to conservative treatment in the long term?
METHODS
METHODS
Patients treated for a minimally displaced acetabular fracture, either conservatively or by closed reduction percutaneous screw fixation, in the period from 2001 to 2013 were included in this retrospective study. Minimal displacement was considered to be less than 5 mm. As well as the collection and analysis of baseline data, Harris Hip Score, Merle d'Aubigné score and Short Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire data were recorded in the context of a clinical study. To better account for confounding factors, patients of each group were matched. The matched-pair criteria included age, BMI, Letournel fracture classification and the presence of associated injuries.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-five patients from each group were matched. On the Harris Hip Score, conservatively treated patients obtained 96 points (52-100, SD 17) vs. 89 points (45-100, SD 17, p = 0.624). On the Merle d'Aubigné score, conservatively treated patients obtained 17 points (10-18, SD 2) vs. 17 points (11-18, SD 2, p = 0.342). Patients with acetabular fractures treated by minimally invasive screw fixation did not result in improved quality of life, measured by SF-12 questionnaire, compared to conservatively treated patients (PCS 47, SD 9 vs. 44, SD 10; p = 0.294 and MCS 51, SD 7 vs. 53, SD 7; p = 0.795).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The clinical results of the two groups revealed no statistically significant differences. From the data, it cannot be deduced that minimally invasive surgical therapy is superior to conservative treatment of minimally displaced acetabular fractures. Prospective randomised studies are recommended to allow reliable evaluation of both treatment options.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Retrospectively registered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32293501
doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01611-y
pii: 10.1186/s13018-020-01611-y
pmc: PMC7092457
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
115Subventions
Organisme : Siemens Healthineers
ID : general fundig
Références
Comput Aided Surg. 2002;7(3):169-78
pubmed: 12362377
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012 Jun;132(6):805-11
pubmed: 22358222
J Orthop Trauma. 2012 Aug;26(8):466-73
pubmed: 22357092
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Nov;(392):433-41
pubmed: 11716419
J Orthop Trauma. 2014 Dec;28(12):700-6; discussion 706
pubmed: 24662989
Injury. 2009 Oct;40(10):1064-6
pubmed: 19535060
J Orthop Traumatol. 2014 Sep;15(3):173-9
pubmed: 24879360
Injury. 2007 Apr;38(4):450-62
pubmed: 17403522
J Biomech Eng. 2011 Sep;133(9):094501
pubmed: 22010747
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Feb;93(2):229-36
pubmed: 21282764
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Oct;85(10):1879-83
pubmed: 14563792
J Surg Res. 2013 Nov;185(1):338-46
pubmed: 23830362
J Orthop Trauma. 2012 Aug;26(8):445-50
pubmed: 22495521
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996 Nov;78(11):1632-45
pubmed: 8934477
J Orthop Trauma. 2002 Feb;16(2):73-81
pubmed: 11818800
Indian J Orthop. 2014 Sep;48(5):484-7
pubmed: 25298555
Med Arch. 2015 Feb;69(1):16-20
pubmed: 25870470
J Orthop Trauma. 2004 Feb;18(2):106-11
pubmed: 14743031
Bone Joint J. 2016 May;98-B(5):690-5
pubmed: 27143743
Injury. 2010 Dec;41(12):1297-305
pubmed: 20728881
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Jan 24;20(1):39
pubmed: 30678661
Injury. 1996;27 Suppl 1:S-A13-20
pubmed: 8762338
Injury. 2016 Feb;47(2):389-94
pubmed: 26434576
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012 Oct;73(4):950-6
pubmed: 22710769
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2015;82(1):51-60
pubmed: 25748662
J Orthop Trauma. 2009 May-Jun;23(5):346-53
pubmed: 19390362
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980 Sep;(151):81-106
pubmed: 7418327