[Personal experience with treatment of acetabular fractures].

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The article presents a retrospective evaluation of a group of 119 patients treated for acetabular fractures between 1996 and 2002.

MATERIAL: In the monitored period 119 patients, (89 men, 30 women) average age 35 years, were hospitalized with an acetabular fracture. Surgically treated were 91 patients (70 men, 21 women), average age 29 years. Prevailing in this group were Type A fractures which accounted for 45%, Type B was represented by 35% and Type C included 19%. Twenty-eight patients were treated conservatively.

METHOD: Indication for surgical treatment was instability, hip incongruence or combination of both. Conservative treatment was chosen in the fractures without displacement, in fractures with secondary congruency and in case of contraindication of surgical treatment. The indication was always based on CT examination with a three-dimensional reconstruction. The surgery was performed within 24 hours in 42%, within 48 hours in 64%, within 72 hours in 87%. Posterior Kocher-Langenbeck approach was used in 54%, anterior ilioinguinal approach in 22% and the combination of both approaches in 24%. Posterior approach was indicated in A1, A2, B1 fractures, ilioinguinal approach in A3, B3, C1 Types, the combination of both approaches in B2, C2, C3 fractures. Osteosynthetic material was chosen according to the fracture type, bone quality and fragment size.

RESULTS: The evaluation was based on subjective complaints, radiograph and clinical examination using Harris Hip Score. In the group of 91 patients treated surgically we achieved excellent result in 41 cases (45%), very good result in 28 cases (31%), fair result in 7 cases (9%) and poor result in 13 cases (15%). We recorded 17 peroperative complications--11 times inadequate reduction, 5 times nerve injury, once vascular injury. Early complications included infect--twice and loosening of implant--once. Late complications occurred in 26 cases--paraarticular ossification in 17 cases, aseptic necrosis of the femoral head in 8 cases.

DISCUSSION: The treatment of fractures of the acetabulum as any intraarticular fracture is based on a precise anatomical reduction, stable fixation and early mobilization. Difficulties of the treatment of the acetabulum arise from the anatomical relations. Decisive for the indication, the method of treatment and prognosis is the type of the injury of the weight-bearing area of the acetabulum. In order to understand the type of the fracture it is necessary to make a careful preoperative examination based particularly on CT examination with a three-dimensional reconstruction. The indication and treatment strategy--surgical approach, method of reduction, type of fixation--is selected accordingly. Each surgical approach has its limits and also the possibilities of fixation are limited by the type of the fracture. The outcomes depend directly on the quality of the reconstruction of the articular surface and the incidence of complications, caused either by the injury or preoperatively.

CONCLUSION: The treatment of displaced fractures of the acetabulum is on principle surgical. Satisfactory results are produced only by anatomical reconstruction of the weight-bearing area of the acetabulum. Surgical treatment is highly demanding and the long-term results not always correspond to the efforts made.