Modified therapy concepts for fragility fractures of the pelvis after additional MRI

Imaging of pelvic ring fractures in older adults and its clinical implications-a systematic review

Identifying the full scope of pelvic fracture patterns in older adults has gained clinical importance since the last decennium. CT is recommended as the golden standard; however, MRI has even greater diagnostic accuracy. Dual energy computed tomography (DECT) is a new and promising imaging technique, but the diagnostic accuracy in the context of pelvic fragility fractures (FFPs) has not been widely established. The aim was to provide insight into the diagnostic accuracy of different imaging techniques and the relevance for clinical practice. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed database. All studies that reported on CT, MRI or DECT imaging techniques in older adults who suffered a pelvic fracture were reviewed and, if relevant, included. Eight articles were included. In up to 54% of the patients, additional fractures were found on MRI compared to CT, and in up to 57% of the patients on DECT. The sensitivity of DECT for posterior pelvic fracture detection was similar to MRI. All patients without fractures on CT appeared to have posterior fractures on MRI. After additional MRI, 40% of the patients had a change of classification. DECT and MRI showed very similar results in terms of diagnostic accuracy. Over a third of all patients appear to have a more severe fracture classification after MRI, the majority changing to Rommens type 4. However, in only a few patients who changed of fracture classification, a change of therapy was advised. This review suggests that MRI and DECT scans are superior in diagnosing FFPs.

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.

FFP: Indication for minimally invasive navigation technique

An 85-year-old female patient was transferred to our clinic for surgical treatment of a complex FFP IIc. She had suffered a ground level fall 10 days ago and was still living independently. The patient was initially treated conservatively with pain medication and immobilization in an outward hospital. Due to the clinical symptoms and complex fracture pattern a physiotherapeutic assisted mobilization was not possible. The clinical examination revealed severe bilateral pain at the anterior and posterior pelvic ring. We performed a minimally invasive and an image-guided surgical stabilization. After surgical treatment the patient was mobilized with crutches for short distances. On the third day after surgical intervention the patient was discharged from our hospital into rehabilitation. This case shows the successful use of minimally invasive and modern navigation technique for treatment of a complex FFP.

A systematic review regarding clinical characteristics, complications, and outcomes of surgical and non-surgical patients with fragility fracture of the pelvis

We conducted this systematic review to clarify the clinical characteristics, complications, and outcomes of surgical and non-surgical patients with fragility fracture of the pelvis (FFP). We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and MEDLINE for English language articles on FFP. We calculated pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) of surgical patients in comparison to non-surgical patients for clinical characteristics (Rommens FFP classification, age, sex, dementia, osteoporosis, diabetes mellitus, pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, and malignancy), complications (pneumonia, urinary tract infection, cardiac event, thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, pressure ulcer, multiple organ failure, anemia caused by surgical bleeding, and surgical site infection), and outcomes (hospital mortality and one-year mortality). Five studies involving 1,090 patients with FFP (surgical patients, n = 432; non-surgical patients, n = 658) were included. FFP type III and IV (OR = 8.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.99 to 11.88; p<0.00001), a younger age (MD = -3.29; 95% CI -3.83 to -2.75; p<0.00001), the absence of dementia (OR = 0.36; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.57; p<0.0001), and the presence of osteoporosis (OR = 1.74; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.35; p = 0.0003) were significantly associated with the surgical patients. Urinary tract infection (OR = 2.06; 95% CI 1.37 to 3.10; p = 0.0005), anemia caused by surgical bleeding (OR = 4.55; 95% CI 1.95 to 10.62; p = 0.0005), and surgical site infection (OR = 16.74; 95% CI 3.05 to 91.87; p = 0.001) were significantly associated with the surgical patients. There were no significant differences in the outcomes between the surgical and non-surgical patients. Our findings may help to further understand the treatment strategy for FFP and improve clinical outcomes.

Progression to Rommens type IIIa fragility fracture of the pelvis managed by delayed open reduction and interdigitating screw fixation: A case report

Efficient management of fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFPs) is established during the acute phase of injury. However, a small number of FFPs exhibit fracture progression with increased instability over time. Fracture progression is typically seen in sacral fractures and rare in iliac fractures. Herein, we present the case of a 72-year-old woman with Rommens type IIIa FFP, following an isolated iliac fracture. It was successfully treated four months after the initial injury with retrograde suprapubic screw fixation via the anterior intra-pelvic approach and percutaneous lateral compression type-2 screw fixation using an interdigitating technique.

Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis and Sacrum: Current Trends in Literature

Fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) and fragility fractures of the sacrum (FFS), which are emerging in the geriatric population, exhibit characteristics that differ from those of pelvic ring disruptions occurring in the younger population. Treatment of FFP/FFS by a multidisciplinary team can be helpful in reducing morbidity and mortality with the goal of reducing pain, regaining early mobility, and restoring independence for activities of daily living. Conservative treatment, including bed rest, pain therapy, and mobilization as tolerated, is indicated for treatment of FFP type I and type II as loss of stability is limited with these fractures. Operative treatment is indicated for FFP type II when conservative treatment has failed and for FFP type III and type IV, which are displaced fractures associated with intense pain and increased instability. Minimally invasive stabilization techniques, such as percutaneous fixation, are favored over open reduction internal fixation. There is little evidence regarding outcomes of patients with FFP/FFS and more literature is needed for determination of optimal management. The aim of this article is to provide a concise review of the current literature and a discussion of the latest recommendations for orthopedic treatment and management of FFP/FFS.

OF-Pelvis classification of osteoporotic sacral and pelvic ring fractures

Objectives

Osteoporotic fractures of the pelvis (OFP) are an increasing issue in orthopedics. Current classification systems (CS) are mostly CT-based and complex and offer only moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability (interRR) and intra-rater reliability (intraRR). MRI is thus gaining importance as a complement.

This study aimed to develop a simple and reliable CT- and MRI-based CS for OFP.

Methods

A structured iterative procedure was conducted to reach a consensus among German-speaking spinal and pelvic trauma experts over 5 years. As a result, the proposed OF-Pelvis CS was developed. To assess its reliability, 28 experienced trauma and orthopedic surgeons categorized 25 anonymized cases using X-ray, CT, and MRI scans twice via online surveys. A period of 4 weeks separated the completion of the first from the second survey, and the cases were presented in an altered order. While 13 of the raters were also involved in developing the CS (developing raters (DR)), 15 user raters (UR) were not deeply involved in the development process.

To assess the interRR of the OF-Pelvis categories, Fleiss’ kappa (κ_F) was calculated for each survey. The intraRR for both surveys was calculated for each rater using Kendall’s tau (τ_K). The presence of a modifier was calculated with κ_F for interRR and Cohen’s kappa (κ_C) for intraRR.

Results

The OF-Pelvis consists of five subgroups and three modifiers. Instability increases from subgroups 1 (OF1) to 5 (OF5) and by a given modifier. The three modifiers can be assigned alone or in combination.

In both surveys, the interRR for subgroups was substantial: κ_F = 0.764 (Survey 1) and κ_F = 0.790 (Survey 2). The interRR of the DR and UR was nearly on par (κ_F Survey 1/Survey 2: DR 0.776/0.813; UR 0.748/0.766). The agreement for each of the five subgroups was also strong (κ_F min.–max. Survey 1/Survey 2: 0.708–0.827/0.747–0.852). The existence of at least one modifier was rated with substantial agreement (κ_F Survey 1/Survey 2: 0.646/0.629).

The intraRR for subgroups showed almost perfect agreement (τ_K = 0.894, DR: τ_K = 0.901, UR: τ_K = 0.889). The modifier had an intraRR of κ_C = 0.684 (DR: κ_C = 0.723, UR: κ_C = 0.651), which is also considered substantial.

Conclusion

The OF-Pelvis is a reliable tool to categorize OFP with substantial interRR and almost perfect intraRR. The similar reliabilities between experienced DRs and URs demonstrate that the training status of the user is not important. However, it may be a reliable basis for an indication of the treatment score.