-
Something wrong with this record ?
Fragility fractures of the pelvis: should they be fixed [Fragilní zlomeniny pánve: mají být fixovány?]
P. M. Rommens, S. O. Dietz, C. Ossendorf, P. Pairon, D. Wagner, A. Hofmann
Language English Country Czech Republic
Document type Journal Article
- MeSH
- Bone Density Conservation Agents therapeutic use MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Pain Management MeSH
- Osteoporotic Fractures classification radiography therapy MeSH
- Pelvic Bones injuries surgery MeSH
- Retrospective Studies MeSH
- Aged, 80 and over MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Physical Therapy Modalities MeSH
- Fracture Fixation, Internal methods MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged, 80 and over MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
Due to the aging population, there is an increasing number of fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP). They are the result of low energy trauma. The bone breaks but the ligaments remain intact. Immobilizing pain at the pubic region or at the sacrum is the main symptom. Conventional radiographs reveal pubic rami fractures, but lesions of the dorsal pelvis are hardly visible and easily overlooked. CT of the pelvis with multiplanar reconstructions show the real extension of the lesion. Most patients have a history of osteoporosis or other fragility fractures. The new classification distinguishes between four categories of different and increasing instability. FFP Type I are anterior lesions only, FFP Type II are non-displaced posterior lesions, FFP Type III are displaced unilateral posterior lesions and FFP Type IV are displaced bilateral posterior lesions. Subgroups discriminate between the localization of the dorsal instability. FFP Type I lesions are treated non-operatively. FFP Type II lesions are fixed in a percutaneous procedure when a trial of conservative treatment was not successful. FFP Type III lesions are treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). FFP Type IV lesions are treated with bilateral ORIF or with a bridging osteosynthesis. Iliosacral screw osteosynthesis is widely used, but has an elevated risk of screw loosening due to diminished bine mineral density. Transsacral bar osteosynthesis enable interfragmentary compression and does not have this danger of loosening. Bridging plate osteosynthesis is used as an additional fixation to iliosacral screw osteosynthesis. Lumbopelvic fixation is restricted to highly unstable lumbopelvic dissociations. More studies are needed to find the optimal treatment for each type of instability. Key words: pelvis, fragility fracture, diagnosis, classification, treatment.
Fragilní zlomeniny pánve: mají být fixovány?
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc16003187
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20160210111448.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 160128s2015 xr a f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.55095/achot2015/015 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)26317181
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xr
- 100 1_
- $a Rommens, P. M. $u Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
- 245 10
- $a Fragility fractures of the pelvis: should they be fixed / $c P. M. Rommens, S. O. Dietz, C. Ossendorf, P. Pairon, D. Wagner, A. Hofmann
- 246 31
- $a Fragilní zlomeniny pánve: mají být fixovány?
- 520 3_
- $a Due to the aging population, there is an increasing number of fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP). They are the result of low energy trauma. The bone breaks but the ligaments remain intact. Immobilizing pain at the pubic region or at the sacrum is the main symptom. Conventional radiographs reveal pubic rami fractures, but lesions of the dorsal pelvis are hardly visible and easily overlooked. CT of the pelvis with multiplanar reconstructions show the real extension of the lesion. Most patients have a history of osteoporosis or other fragility fractures. The new classification distinguishes between four categories of different and increasing instability. FFP Type I are anterior lesions only, FFP Type II are non-displaced posterior lesions, FFP Type III are displaced unilateral posterior lesions and FFP Type IV are displaced bilateral posterior lesions. Subgroups discriminate between the localization of the dorsal instability. FFP Type I lesions are treated non-operatively. FFP Type II lesions are fixed in a percutaneous procedure when a trial of conservative treatment was not successful. FFP Type III lesions are treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). FFP Type IV lesions are treated with bilateral ORIF or with a bridging osteosynthesis. Iliosacral screw osteosynthesis is widely used, but has an elevated risk of screw loosening due to diminished bine mineral density. Transsacral bar osteosynthesis enable interfragmentary compression and does not have this danger of loosening. Bridging plate osteosynthesis is used as an additional fixation to iliosacral screw osteosynthesis. Lumbopelvic fixation is restricted to highly unstable lumbopelvic dissociations. More studies are needed to find the optimal treatment for each type of instability. Key words: pelvis, fragility fracture, diagnosis, classification, treatment.
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a senioři nad 80 let $7 D000369
- 650 _2
- $a inhibitory kostní resorpce $x terapeutické užití $7 D050071
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a vnitřní fixace fraktury $x metody $7 D005593
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a osteoporotické fraktury $x klasifikace $x radiografie $x terapie $7 D058866
- 650 _2
- $a management bolesti $7 D059408
- 650 _2
- $a pánevní kosti $x zranění $x chirurgie $7 D010384
- 650 _2
- $a techniky fyzikální terapie $7 D026741
- 650 _2
- $a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Dietz, S.-O. $u Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Ossendorf, C. $u Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Pairon, P. $u Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Wagner, D. $u Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Hofmann, A. $u Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
- 773 0_
- $w MED00011021 $t Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Čechoslovaca $x 0001-5415 $g Roč. 82, č. 2 (2015), s. 101-112
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b A 8 $c 507 $y 4 $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20160128 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20160210100958 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1106884 $s 927433
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2015 $b 82 $c 2 $d 101-112 $i 0001-5415 $m Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Čechoslovaca $n Acta chir. orthop. traumatol. Čechoslovaca $x MED00011021
- LZP __
- $b NLK118 $a Pubmed-20160128
