Rommens Pol M, Ossendorf Christian, Pairon Philip, Dietz Sven-Oliver, Wagner Daniel, Hofmann Alexander
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg-University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany,
J Orthop Sci. 2015 Jan;20(1):1-11. doi: 10.1007/s00776-014-0653-9. Epub 2014 Oct 17.
Fragility fractures of the pelvic ring (FFP) are increasing in frequency and require challenging treatment. A new comprehensive classification considers both fracture morphology and degree of instability. The classification system also provides recommendations for type and invasiveness of treatment. In this article, a literature review of treatment alternatives is presented and compared with our own experiences. Whereas FFP Type I lesions can be treated conservatively, FFP Types III and IV require surgical treatment. For FFP Type II lessions, percutaneous fixation techniques should be considered after a trial of conservative treatment. FFP Type III lesions need open reduction and internal fixation, whereas FFP Type IV lesions require bilateral fixation. The respective advantages and limitations of dorsal (sacroiliac screw fixation, sacroplasty, bridging plate fixation, transsacral positioning bar placement, angular stable plate) and anterior (external fixation, angular stable plate fixation, retrograde transpubic screw fixation) pelvic fixations are described.
骨盆环脆性骨折(FFP)的发生率正在上升,且治疗颇具挑战性。一种新的综合分类方法兼顾了骨折形态和不稳定程度。该分类系统还针对治疗类型和侵入性提供了建议。本文对治疗方案进行了文献综述,并与我们自己的经验进行了比较。FFP I型损伤可采用保守治疗,而FFP III型和IV型则需要手术治疗。对于FFP II型损伤,在尝试保守治疗后应考虑采用经皮固定技术。FFP III型损伤需要切开复位内固定,而FFP IV型损伤需要双侧固定。文中描述了后路(骶髂螺钉固定、骶骨成形术、桥接钢板固定、经骶骨定位杆置入、角稳定钢板)和前路(外固定、角稳定钢板固定、逆行经耻骨螺钉固定)骨盆固定各自的优缺点。