Haemorrhage in fragility fractures of the pelvis

Evaluation of a treatment protocol based on conservative therapy for fragility fractures of the pelvis

PURPOSE

In an aging society, fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) have increased significantly. However, there is no clear consensus on the timing and criteria for transitioning from conservative treatment to surgery for these fractures. Thus, we aimed to investigate the effects of our treatment protocol for FFP based on conservative treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study including 74 patients with FFP at our institution between 2015 and 2021. All patients were treated conservatively for the first two weeks. During this period, only wheelchair transfer was allowed. If the patient could not walk after this period, surgery was performed. Fracture type (Rommens classification), walking ability, presence of complications after admission, presence of fracture union, and surgical treatment was investigated. Patients were divided into two groups: a stable group (type I/II) and an unstable group (type III/IV).

RESULTS

Fracture union was achieved in all patients. Thirteen patients developed complications after being admitted to our hospital; seven showed decreased walking ability, and six required surgeries. The stable and unstable groups comprised 47 and 27 patients, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding the percentage of patients who developed complications or experienced decrease in walking ability. The percentage of patients who required surgery was significantly higher in the unstable group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our FFP management protocol was effective regardless of fracture type. It is important to provide a period for careful assessment of instability, and to try to prevent fracture progression.

Clinical Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis

BACKGROUND

Fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFPs) are osteoporotic pelvic fractures or insufficiency pelvic fractures caused by the low energy injury or stress fracture in daily livings in the elderly more than 60 years, which the incidence is increasing with the aging population in our country. FFPs result in considerable morbidity and mortality and as well as massive financial burden on the already strained health systems throughout the world.

METHODS

This clinical guideline was initiated by the Trauma Orthopedic Branch of Chinese Orthopedic Association; the External Fixation and Limb Reconstruction Branch of Chinese Orthopedic Association; the National Clinical Research Center for Orthopedics, Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation; Senior Department of Orthopedics of Chinese PLA general hospital; the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University. The grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach and the reporting items for practice guidelines in healthcare (RIGHT) checklist were adopted.

RESULTS

22 evidence based recommendations were formulated based on 22 most concerned clinical problems among orthopedic surgeons in China.

CONCLUSION

Understanding these trends through this guideline will facilitate better clinical care of FFP patients by medical providers and better allocation of resources by policy makers.

Posterior pelvic ring involvement detected with CT taken within a week of admission in acute fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) does not predict failure of conservative treatment: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Acute low energy pubic rami fractures in the elderly receive primarily conservative treatment. There is debate to what extent posterior ring involvement, which is detected superiorly by CT compared to X-ray, has an impact on outcome and may require modified treatment. We want to demonstrate if posterior ring involvement has an influence on different types of outcome in primarily conservatively treated acute FFP, questioning the usefulness of early CT. Additionally we analysed the early fracture pattern in cases where conservative treatment failed with need for secondary surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 155 consecutive patients, recruited between 2009 and 2016, aged over 65 years diagnosed with an acute LE-PFr on X-ray at the emergency department of a single, level-one trauma centre and receiving an early CT. A set of outcome parameters was compared between patients with an isolated pubic rami fracture (CTia) and patients who had a combined posterior pelvic ring fracture (CTcp).

RESULTS

There were 155 patients of whom 85.2% were female with a mean age of 83 years. 76.8% of patients living at home returned home and 15.5% moved to a nursing home. Mortality rate during hospitalisation was 6.4% and 14.8% at one year post-trauma. Secondary fracture displacement occurred in 22.6%. Secondary surgery was performed in 6 cases (3.9%). Median hospitalisation length of stay was 21 days (range 0 to 112 days). There was no significant association between the subgroups and change in residential status (p = 0.65), complications during hospitalisation (p = 0.75), mortality rate during admission (p = 0.75) and at 1 year (p = 0.88), readmission within 30 days (p = 0.46) and need for secondary surgery (p = 0.2). There was a significant increased median length of stay (p = 0.011) and rate of secondary displacement (p = 0.015) in subgroup CTcp. Secondary displacement had no impact on in-hospital complications (p = 0.7) nor mortality rate during admission (p = 0.79) or at 1 year (0.77). Early CT in patients who underwent secondary surgery showed stable B2.1 lesions in 4 of 6 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that early CT in patients with conservatively treated acute LE-PFr in order to detect posterior lesions, has limited value in predicting failure of conservative treatment.

Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis: Current Practices and Future Directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarise the current evidence and clinical practices for patients with fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP).

RECENT FINDINGS

FFPs are an increasingly prevalent and recognised problem in the elderly population. Recent evidence indicates they have a significant impact on function, morbidity and mortality. While traditional management of FFPs was predominantly non-surgical, surgical options have been increasingly used, with a range of surgical methods available. To date, limited consensus exists on the optimal strategy for suitable patient selection, and clinical trials in this population have proved problematic. The management of FFPs requires a multi-faceted approach to enhance patient care, including adequate pain control, minimisation of complications and optimisation of medical management. Early return to mobilisation should be a key treatment goal to maintain functional independence. The selection of patients who will maximally benefit from surgical treatment, and the most appropriate surgical strategy to employ, remains contentious.

FRAGILITY FRACTURES OF THE SACRUM: A SILENT EPIDEMIC

Fragility fractures of the sacrum (FFS) are caused by low-energy trauma in the elderly population. Due to the nuanced symptomatology, many FFS remains unrecognized and the prevalence is underestimated. The clinical presentation varies, typically presenting with weightbearing low back pain without even remembering of a previous trauma. Radiographs are usually insufficient for the diagnosis and second level imaging modalities are required. In particular, magnetic resonance demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy. Treatment should aim to guarantee early mobilization and weightbearing, efficient pain relief and early discharge from the hospital to a proper facility for rehabilitation. Conservative treatment is reserved to non-displaced fractures with an adequate pain relief within one week allowing early mobilization. Otherwise, surgical treatment must be preferred. Nowadays, minimally invasive techniques, such as ileo-sacral screws or trans-sacral bar osteosynthesis, are safe and effective procedures and have overcome open procedures. In more complex patterns, with complete dissociation between the pelvic ring and the ilio-lumbar spine, spino-pelvic fixation is the procedure of choice.

Bleeding Risk Associated With Hemodynamically Stable Low-Energy Pelvic Fracture

Introduction:

Life-threatening hemorrhage associated with low-energy pelvic fracture has been described in single cases in the literature. However, there is limited evidence available on the bleeding risk associated with hemodynamically stable osteoporotic pelvic fractures. The objective of this study was to estimate the bleeding risk associated with low-energy osteoporotic pelvic fractures in the elderly population.

Materials and Methods:

A retrospective review of patients aged > 65 years old with pelvic fractures admitted between 2015 and 2018 was performed. Eighty-two patients were identified: 12 males and 70 females with a median age of 86 years. The median Charlson comorbidity index was 6 (interquartile range = 5-7). Eighty-one fractures were classified as lateral compression I or Tile A2, and 1 fracture was classified as lateral compression II or Tile B2. Forty patients were on concurrent anticoagulation treatment. In 4 patients on warfarin, this treatment was reversed on admission.

Results:

The mean hemoglobin (Hb) level on arrival was 12.36 g/dL (±1.67 g/dL). There were significant drops in Hb levels on day 1 (Hb = 11.22 ± 1.86 g/dL, P < .001) and day 4 (Hb = 10.97 ± 1.6 g/dL, P < .001). Nine percent of patients required a blood transfusion. The mean baseline Hb level pre-transfusion was 8.33 g/dL (±1.15). Preexisting anticoagulation treatment did not predispose patients to greater decreases in Hb levels on day 1 (mean difference = 0.16 g/dL, P = .62) or day 4 (mean difference = 0.29 g/dL, P = .48) post-admission.

Discussion:

An observed mean decrease in Hb level of up to 1.4 g/dL can occur in hemodynamically stable elderly patients with osteoporotic pelvic fractures, reflecting an approximate loss of 1.4 units of packed red blood cells.

Conclusion:

This degree of decrease in Hb may be clinically significant in geriatric patients with chronic anemia and a history of cardiovascular disease.

Emergency Orthogeriatrics: Concepts and Therapeutic Considerations for the Geriatric Patient

Appropriate recognition of the physiologic, psychological, and clinical differences among geriatric patients, with respect to orthopedic injury and disease, is paramount for all emergency medicine providers to ensure they are providing high-value care for this vulnerable population.

[Fragility fractures of the pelvis]

Fragility fractures of the pelvis are increasing in frequency. In most cases patients suffer a minor injury, have intense pain in the pelvic region and impaired mobility. The new fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) classification distinguishes between four types with increasing instability. The FFP types I and II are treated conservatively. For FFP types III and IV and type II with unsuccessful conservative treatment, minimally invasive stabilizing techniques are recommended. Both the posterior and anterior pelvic ring must be stabilized. Alternative techniques for dorsal stabilization are iliosacral screw and transsacral bar osteosynthesis, transiliac internal fixator and lumbopelvic fixation. External fixation, retrograde transpubic screw fixation, anterior internal fixation and plate and screw osteosynthesis are alternatives for the anterior pelvic ring. Treatment of fragility fractures of the pelvis should be carried out as part of an orthogeriatric co-management.

Do We Need a Separate Classification for Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis?

Fragility fractures of the pelvis are occurring with increasing frequency. These fractures, occurring in the geriatric patient population, are low-energy injuries and are dissimilar in many ways from those caused by high-energy trauma. For example, the mechanism of injury is different and emergency treatment is usually not necessary. Having diminished bone strength, fragility fracture lines follow areas of low bone mineral density and loss of pelvic stability may increase over time. Based on our clinical experience, we propose a comprehensive classification of pelvic fragility fractures separate from the existing pelvic ring injury classification to provide a framework for distinguishing the different fragility fracture types and their recommended treatment. This classification is derived first from the degree of fracture instability, followed by the location of the fracture. Anterior pelvic fractures are differentiated from posterior pelvic ring fractures, nondisplaced fractures from displaced, and unilateral from bilateral. It is our belief that this new in-depth analysis of these lesions will assist the clinician in identifying the specific patterns of fragility fracture instability and selecting the appropriate choice of treatment. Further investigation is required to determine the ultimate value of this proposed pelvic fragility fracture classification system. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Diagnostic Level V.

When and How to Operate Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis?

Fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) are an entity with an increasing frequency. The characteristics of these fractures are different from pelvic ring fractures in younger adults. There is a low energy instead of a high energy trauma mechanism. Due to a specific and consistent decrease of bone mineral density, typical fractures in the anterior and posterior pelvic ring occur. Bilateral sacral ala fractures are frequent. A new classification system distinguishes between four categories with increasing loss of stability. The subtypes represent different localizations of fractures. The primary goal of treatment is restoring mobility and independency. Depending on the amount of instability, conservative or surgical treatment is recommended. The operative technique should be as less invasive as possible. When the broken posterior pelvic ring is fixed operatively, a surgical fixation of the anterior pelvic ring should be considered as well. FFP Type I can be treated conservatively. In many cases, FFP Type II can also be treated conservatively. When conservative treatment fails, percutaneous fixation is performed. FFP Type III and FFP Type IV are treated operatively. The choice of the operation technique is depending on the localization of the fracture. Iliosacral screw osteosynthesis, transsacral bar osteosynthesis, transiliac internal fixation, and iliolumbar fixation are alternatives for stabilization of the posterior pelvic ring. Plate osteosynthesis, retrograde transpubic screw, and anterior internal fixation are alternatives for stabilization of the anterior pelvic ring. Postoperatively, early mobilization, with weight bearing as tolerated, is started. Simultaneously, bone metabolism is also analyzed and its defects compensated. Medical comorbidities should be identified and treated with the help of a multidisciplinary team.

Osteoporotic Pelvic Fractures

BACKGROUND

The estimated incidence of osteoporotic pelvic fractures among persons over age 60 in Germany is 224 per 100 000 persons per year, and rising. A number of surgical treatment options are available, but clinical long-term data are lacking.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications and guidelines retrieved by a selective literature search, and on the authors' clinical experience.

RESULTS

Patients often report one or more relatively trivial traumatic incidents leading up to the fracture. They complain of pain in the hip, groin, or lower lumbar region, or of low back pain and sciatica. A new classification scheme entitled Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis (FFP) takes the morphology of the fracture into account and can be used as an aid to therapeutic decision-making (evidence level IV). The goal of treatment is early mobilization with adequate pain relief. Isolated anterior pelvic ring fractures (FFP I) and nondisplaced posterior pelvic ring fractures (FFP II) are usually stable and can be treated conservatively. Type III and IV injuries are unstable and should generally be treated surgically.

CONCLUSION

Retrospective analyses have shown that osteoporotic pelvic fractures are associated with decreased mobility and independence and with a one-year mortality ranging from 9.5% to 27%. Prospective therapeutic trials are urgently needed.

Fragility fractures of the sacrum: how to identify and when to treat surgically?

The increasing prevalence of fragility fractures of the sacrum (FFS) occurring predominantly in osteoporotic individuals poses a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. The clinical presentation varies from longstanding low back pain without the patient remembering a traumatic event to immobilized patients after suffering a low-energy trauma. FFS are often combined with a fracture of the anterior pelvic ring; hence they are classified as a part of fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP). If not displaced, the patients are treated with weight bearing as tolerated and analgesics; however, we advocate to treat displaced fractures surgically according to the fracture personality and the patient’s comorbidities. Surgical options include minimal invasive sacro-iliac screws, trans-sacral bar osteosynthesis, open reduction and internal fixation, or spinopelvic stabilization. In the light of the high complication rate associated with immobilized patients, an operative approach often is indicated to accelerate the patient’s mobility.