Short-column acetabular fracture fixation through a mini-pararectus approach in anteriorly displaced acetabular fractures

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 539-543
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Badran ◽  
Osama Farouk ◽  
Ayman Kamal ◽  
Hossam Abubeih ◽  
Mohamed Khaled
2011 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 386-388
Author(s):  
Hitesh Lal ◽  
Pankaj Bansal ◽  
Vinod Kumar Sabarwal ◽  
Deepak Mittal

Maintaining reduction of an acetabular fracture during internal fixation is difficult. A variety of clamps can be used to facilitate reduction, but they are cumbersome and may damage the sciatic nerve. We developed a simple and cost-effective technique for provisional reduction and fixation of acetabular fractures using 2 screws and a tension band wire.


2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Ayman M. A. Tadros ◽  
Thomas R. Oxland ◽  
Peter O’Brien

Introduction. A method for the determination of safe angles for screws placed in the posterior acetabular wall based on preoperative computed tomography (CT) is described. It defines a retroacetabular angle and determines its variation in the population. Methods. The retroacetabular angle is the angle between the retroacetabular surface and the tangent to the posterior acetabular articular surface. Screws placed through the marginal posterior wall at an angle equal to the retroacetabular angle are extraarticular. Medial screws can be placed at larger angles whose difference from the retroacetabular angle is defined as the allowance angles. CT scans of all patients with acetabular fractures treated in our institute between September 2002 to July 2007 were used to measure the retroacetabular angle and tangent. Results. Two hundred thirty one patients were included. The average (range) age was 42 (15–74) years. The average (range) retroacetabular angle was 39 (30–47) degrees. The average (range) retroacetabular tangent was 36 (30–45) mm. Conclusions. Placing the screws at an average (range) angle of 39 (33–47) degrees of anterior inclination with the retroacetabular surface makes them extraarticular. Angles for medial screws are larger. Safe angles can be calculated preoperatively with a computer program.


Injury ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 695-701 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.D. Bastian ◽  
M. Savic ◽  
J.L. Cullmann ◽  
W.D. Zech ◽  
V. Djonov ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-59
Author(s):  
Jamot S ◽  
Razif A ◽  
Azhar MM ◽  
AA Abbas

Author(s):  
Michael J. Chen ◽  
Harsh Wadhwa ◽  
Seth S. Tigchelaar ◽  
Christopher S. Frey ◽  
Michael J. Gardner ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. CMTIM.S12265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua L. Gary

As the population ages, the incidence of osteoporotic fractures, including those of the pelvis and acetabulum, continues to rise. Treatment of the elder patients with an acetabular fracture is much more controversial than the treatment of younger patients with similar injuries, where prevention of posttraumatic arthritis and total hip replacement remains optimal to limit need for revision arthroplasty. Arthroplasty for fractures of the proximal femur is commonplace in an older population and is a mainstay of treatment to promote early mobilization and weight-bearing. However, even with acute total hip arthroplasty for a geriatric acetabular fracture, most surgeons do not permit immediate weight-bearing postoperatively. Therefore, controversy regarding optimal treatment of these challenging fractures persists. Four treatment options have emerged: nonoperative treatment with early mobilization, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), limited open reduction and percutaneous screw fixation, and acute total hip arthroplasty. The exact indications and benefits of each treatment remain unknown. This article serves as a review of these four treatments and the data existing to support them.


2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 367-381
Author(s):  
Robel K. Gebre ◽  
Jukka Hirvasniemi ◽  
Iikka Lantto ◽  
Simo Saarakkala ◽  
Juhana Leppilahti ◽  
...  

AbstractThe incidence of low-energy acetabular fractures has increased. However, the structural factors for these fractures remain unclear. The objective of this study was to extract trabecular bone architecture and proximal femur geometry (PFG) measures from clinical computed tomography (CT) images to (1) identify possible structural risk factors of acetabular fractures, and (2) to discriminate fracture cases from controls using machine learning methods. CT images of 107 acetabular fracture subjects (25 females, 82 males) and 107 age-gender matched controls were examined. Three volumes of interest, one at the acetabulum and two at the femoral head, were extracted to calculate bone volume fraction (BV/TV), gray-level co-occurrence matrix and histogram of the gray values (GV). The PFG was defined by neck shaft angle and femoral neck axis length. Relationships between the variables were assessed by statistical mean comparisons and correlation analyses. Bayesian logistic regression and Elastic net machine learning models were implemented for classification. We found lower BV/TV at the femoral head (0.51 vs. 0.55, p = 0.012) and lower mean GV at both the acetabulum (98.81 vs. 115.33, p < 0.001) and femoral head (150.63 vs. 163.47, p = 0.005) of fracture subjects when compared to their matched controls. The trabeculae within the femoral heads of the acetabular fracture sides differed in structure, density and texture from the corresponding control sides of the fracture subjects. Moreover, the PFG and trabecular architectural variables, alone and in combination, were able to discriminate fracture cases from controls (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve 0.70 to 0.79). In conclusion, lower density in the acetabulum and femoral head with abnormal trabecular structure and texture at the femoral head, appear to be risk factors for low-energy acetabular fractures.


2019 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. S43-S48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walid A. Elnahal ◽  
Anthony J. Ward ◽  
Mehool R. Acharya ◽  
Timothy J. S. Chesser

Author(s):  
Madhav Karunakar ◽  
Abhay Elhance ◽  
Gaurav Saini

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document