[Outcome after plate stabilization of symphyseal diastasis].
Ergebnisse nach Plattenstabilisierung der Symphysensprengung.
AO
Fixation
Pelvic fracture
Pelvic ring
Trauma
Journal
Der Unfallchirurg
ISSN: 1433-044X
Titre abrégé: Unfallchirurg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8502736
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2020
Nov 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
30
4
2020
medline:
18
11
2020
entrez:
30
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Separation of the pubic symphysis with corresponding diastasis can be stabilized by symphyseal plating. Which pelvic injuries are stabilized with symphyseal plating and what is their outcome? A retrospective evaluation of 64 patients who underwent symphyseal plating over a period of 24 months was conducted. Of the patients 56 were male and 8 female with a mean age of 44 years (SD ± 17 years). The main cause of the pelvic injuries were traffic accidents. The distribution according to the AO fracture classification was 14 × B1, 10 × B2, 5 × B3, 23 × C1, 9 × C2 and 3 × C3 injuries. The distribution according to the Young and Burgess classification showed 9 × APC I, 18 × APC II, 13 × APC III, 9 × LC I, 3 × LC II, 2 × LC III and 10 × VS injuries. The mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 32 (SD ± 17) and the mean inpatient stay was 29 days (SD ± 16 days; positive correlation p ≤ 0.001). Radiological implant loosening occurred in 52 patients. 14 patients required treatment for severe complications. The leading reason for revision surgery was implant failure (n = 8). These observations suggest that radiological signs of implant loosening are commonly observed but rarely the reason for revision surgery. Complete implant failures, however; occur mainly within the first postoperative weeks and require early revision. A timely clarification by additional X-ray imaging should be carried out if this is suspected.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Separation of the pubic symphysis with corresponding diastasis can be stabilized by symphyseal plating.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
Which pelvic injuries are stabilized with symphyseal plating and what is their outcome?
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective evaluation of 64 patients who underwent symphyseal plating over a period of 24 months was conducted.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the patients 56 were male and 8 female with a mean age of 44 years (SD ± 17 years). The main cause of the pelvic injuries were traffic accidents. The distribution according to the AO fracture classification was 14 × B1, 10 × B2, 5 × B3, 23 × C1, 9 × C2 and 3 × C3 injuries. The distribution according to the Young and Burgess classification showed 9 × APC I, 18 × APC II, 13 × APC III, 9 × LC I, 3 × LC II, 2 × LC III and 10 × VS injuries. The mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 32 (SD ± 17) and the mean inpatient stay was 29 days (SD ± 16 days; positive correlation p ≤ 0.001). Radiological implant loosening occurred in 52 patients. 14 patients required treatment for severe complications. The leading reason for revision surgery was implant failure (n = 8).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
These observations suggest that radiological signs of implant loosening are commonly observed but rarely the reason for revision surgery. Complete implant failures, however; occur mainly within the first postoperative weeks and require early revision. A timely clarification by additional X-ray imaging should be carried out if this is suspected.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32347368
doi: 10.1007/s00113-020-00804-8
pii: 10.1007/s00113-020-00804-8
pmc: PMC7653790
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
ger
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
870-878Références
Injury. 2013 Feb;44(2):183-8
pubmed: 23068141
Injury. 2015 Feb;46(2):315-9
pubmed: 25527459
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 27;12(11):e0184000
pubmed: 29176772
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2017 Oct;231(10):931-937
pubmed: 28689459
J Anat. 2010 Nov;217(5):475-87
pubmed: 20840351
Injury. 2006 Aug;37(8):691-7
pubmed: 16814787
Radiology. 1986 Aug;160(2):445-51
pubmed: 3726125
Injury. 2014 Apr;45(4):748-51
pubmed: 24326027
J Orthop Surg Res. 2012 Sep 27;7:31
pubmed: 23017093
Injury. 2016 Aug;47(8):1707-12
pubmed: 27282685
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016 Dec;136(12):1673-1681
pubmed: 27628459
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Aug;470(8):2148-53
pubmed: 22552765
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2019 Aug;45(4):745-755
pubmed: 29536110
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Jun 1;98(11):944-51
pubmed: 27252439
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Aug;470(8):2154-60
pubmed: 22707071
J Orthop Trauma. 2016 Jun;30(6):325-30
pubmed: 26709813
J Orthop. 2017 Aug 09;14(4):530-536
pubmed: 28878511
Oper Orthop Traumatol. 1999 Jun;11(2):149-59
pubmed: 17004165
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 May;139(5):645-650
pubmed: 30715568
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jan;32 Suppl 1:S1-S170
pubmed: 29256945
J Orthop Trauma. 2008 Jul;22(6):373-8
pubmed: 18594300
J Trauma. 2003 Dec;55(6):1139-44
pubmed: 14676661
Int Orthop. 2017 Aug;41(8):1671-1678
pubmed: 28078361
Z Orthop Unfall. 2016 Oct;154(5):470-476
pubmed: 27294481
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Oct 2;101(19):1724-1731
pubmed: 31577677
J Trauma. 1989 Jul;29(7):981-1000; discussion 1000-2
pubmed: 2746708
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Jan;93(1):78-84
pubmed: 21196548
Injury. 2017 Jul;48(7):1714-1716
pubmed: 28465005
Rev Bras Ortop. 2017 May 19;52(3):260-269
pubmed: 28702382
Anat Cell Biol. 2014 Mar;47(1):40-3
pubmed: 24693481
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 Feb;32 Suppl 1:S18-S24
pubmed: 29373447