Low-energy lateral compression type 1 (LC1) pelvic ring fractures in the middle-aged and elderly affect hospital quality measures and functional outcomes

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of anterior pelvic ring fixation alone for treating lateral compression type 1 (LC-1) fractures with nondisplaced complete sacral fractures. Methods Patients with LC-1 type pelvic fractures with nondisplaced complete sacral fractures in the Xi’an Honghui Hospital were screened. Those who underwent surgical treatment for the anterior pelvic ring fractures and conservative treatment for the sacral factures were included in the analysis. The Majeed and Short Form-12 (SF-12) functional scores were used to evaluate these patients. Results Of the 123 patients enrolled, 108 (88%) responded to our enquiries regarding the outcome. The mean follow-up period was 18.37 months for the 108 patients who responded. The mean SF-12 functional score was 48.22 ± 9.68. The mean Majeed score was 83.47 ± 9.23, including 52 with excellent, 47 with good, seven with fair, two with poor outcomes. The SF-12 functional and Majeed scores were significantly higher in those aged <45 years or without lower limb injury than in those aged ≥45 years or with lower limb injury (P < 0.05). Conclusion Acceptable functional outcomes can be obtained for LC-1 pelvic fractures with nondisplaced complete sacral fractures by using anterior pelvic ring fixation alone.

Download Full-text

Loss of Ambulatory Independence Following Low-Energy Pelvic Ring Fractures

Geriatric Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation ◽

10.1177/2151459319878101 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 10 ◽

pp. 215145931987810

Author(s):

David N. Kugelman ◽

Nina Fisher ◽

Sanjit R. Konda ◽

Kenneth A. Egol

Keyword(s):

Pelvic Fracture ◽

Functional Outcomes ◽

Pelvic Ring ◽

Pelvic Fractures ◽

Assistive Devices ◽

Low Energy ◽

Pelvic Ring Fractures ◽

Long Term Follow Up

Introduction: Lateral compression type 1 (LC1) pelvic ring fractures make up 63% of all pelvic ring injuries. This fracture pattern is typically seen in older patients. The purpose of this study is to assess the ambulatory status of individuals sustaining LC1 fractures at long-term follow-up and what specific characteristics, if any, effect this status or functional outcomes. Methods: Over a 2-year period, all pelvic ring injury at 2 hospitals within one academic institution was queried. One hundred sixty-one low-energy LC1 pelvic fractures were identified. Results: Fifty patients were available for long-term outcomes (mean: 36 months). Long-term functional outcomes (mean follow-up: 36 months) as measured by SMFA subgroup scores were demonstrated to be 3 times higher in patients currently using assistive devices for walking ( P = .012). Increased age ( P = .050) was associated with the continued use of assistive walking devices. Of the patients who did not use an ambulatory device prior to LC1 injury, 5 (11.6%) sustained a fall or medical complication within 30 days of the index pelvic fracture; this was associated with the current use of an assistive ambulatory device ( P = .010). Forty-three (86%) patients didn’t use an assistive ambulatory device prior to sustaining the LC1 fracture. Seven (14%) patients utilized assistive devices both before and after the LC1 injury. Thirteen (26%) patients, who did not utilize assistive ambulatory devices prior to their injury, necessitated them at long-term follow-up. Discussion: Surgeons should be aware of these associations, as they can implement early interventions aimed at patients at risk, for assistive device use, following LC1 pelvic fractures. Conclusion: More than a quarter of the patients sustaining an LC1 pelvic fracture continue to use an aid for ambulation at long-term follow-up. Older age, complications, and falls within 30 days of this injury are associated with the utilization of an assistive ambulatory device.

Download Full-text