Gencarelli P, Menken LG, Hong IS, Robbins CJ, Jankowski JM, Yoon RS, Liporace FA. No Difference in Acute Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Fix and Replace Versus Fixation Alone in the Treatment of Geriatric Acetabular Fractures.
J Orthop Trauma 2024;
38:88-95. [PMID:
38031287 DOI:
10.1097/bot.0000000000002733]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2023] [Accepted: 11/15/2023] [Indexed: 12/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
To compare acute outcomes between patients undergoing fix and replace (FaR) versus open-reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) alone in the treatment of geriatric acetabular fractures.
METHODS
DESIGN
Retrospective Cohort Study.
SETTING
Single Level 2 Trauma Center.
PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA
Consecutive acetabular fracture patients ≥ 55 years of age treated by two orthopaedic trauma surgeons at one tertiary care center from January 2017 to April 2022 with FaR versus ORIF were identified. Included were those with complete datasets within the 180-day global period. Excluded were patients with previous ORIF of the acetabulum or femur, or revision total hip arthroplasty.
OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS
The primary outcomes were length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative weight-bearing status, postoperative disposition, time to postoperative mobilization, and 90-day readmission rates. Secondary outcomes compared included demographic information, injury mechanism, surgical time, complications, revisions, and preoperative and postoperative Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score for Joint Replacement (HOOS Jr.) scores. These were compared between FaR and ORIF groups.
RESULTS
Seventeen FaR patients (average age 74.5 ± 9.0 years) and 11 ORIF patients (average age 69.4 ± 9.6 years) met inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up was 26.4 months (range: 6-75.6 months). More FaR group patients were ordered immediate weight-bearing as tolerated or partial weight-bearing compared with ORIF alone (70% vs. 9.0%, P = 0.03). More patients in the FaR group had pre-existing hip osteoarthritis compared with ORIF alone (71% vs. 27%, P = 0.05). Fracture classification ( P = 0.03) and Charlson Comorbidity Index ( P = 0.02) differed between the 2 groups. There were no other differences in demographics, LOS ( P = 0.99), postoperative disposition ( P = 0.54), time to postoperative mobilization ( P = 0.38), 90-day readmission rates ( P = 0.51), operative time ( P = 0.06), radiographic union ( P = 0.35), time to union ( P = 0.63), pre- ( P = 0.32) or postoperative HOOS Jr. scores ( P = 0.80), delta HOOS Jr. scores ( P = 0.28), or reoperation rates between groups ( P = 0.15).
CONCLUSIONS
FaR and ORIF seem to be sound treatment options in the management of geriatric acetabular fractures. Patients in the FaR group achieved immediate or partial weight-bearing earlier than the ORIF group; however, time to postoperative mobilization did not differ between the two groups. The remainder of acute postoperative outcomes (LOS, postoperative disposition, and 90-day readmission rates) did not differ between the two groups.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Collapse