4.4 Article

Radiological analysis, operative management and functional outcome of open book pelvic lesions: A 13-year cohort study

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.11.057

关键词

Pelvic ring; Open book pelvic lesion; Symphysis pubis diastasis; Sacral fracture; Posterior stabilization; Outcome; Functional; Radiological

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present the clinical and radiological outcome of a 13-year cohort study of 38 open book pelvic lesions. All patients were treated in one Level I Trauma centre. In the posterior pelvis, sacro-iliac diastasis was seen in 31 patients, sacral fracture in 7. In all patients with sacro-iliac diastasis, the pubic bone was inferiorly displaced on the primary ap pelvic overview on the side of injury. All but one patient was treated with open reduction and internal fixation of the symphysis pubis. Additional stabilization of the posterior pelvis was done in 9 patients. 32 patients were seen after a median follow up of 84 months. Majeed score and SF-36 questionnaire were used. Functional outcome was excellent with a mean Majeed score of 95.7. Comparing our data with the SF-36 score of the normal German population, the mean value of the 'role-physical' and the 'physical function' categories was significantly lower for patients treated with an open book lesion. There was a tendency towards a better outcome in open book lesions with sacral fracture. There was a tendency towards worse outcome for the patients with additional dorsal stabilization. Male impotence was the single most important lesion of neurological origin which persisted two years after open book lesion. Conclusion: Functional outcome after surgical treatment of open book pelvic lesions is good. External rotation and accompanying inferior displacement of the ipsilateral hemipelvis may be a sign of partial lesion of the posterior sacroiliac complex. Identification of patients who need additional posterior stabilization remains difficult. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据