Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China 050050.
Department of Pelvic and Acetabular Surgery, Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shanxi, China 712000.
Biomed Res Int. 2022 Mar 24;2022:9212895. doi: 10.1155/2022/9212895. eCollection 2022.
The aim of the study was to compare the morphological distinctions of the posterior wall (PW) in different complex acetabular fractures using 3D software and fracture mapping technique and ultimately to provide for improved clinical treatment.
One hundred and fourteen patients with complex acetabular fracture associated with PW were recruited. All patients were divided into two groups according to the injury mechanism of the PW: Group A (both-column and PW) and Group B (including posterior column and PW; T shape and PW; and transverse and PW). Fracture mapping was generated on the intra- and extrasurface of a standard template. The radiological parameters including spatial displacement, articular surface area, articular range, marginal impaction, and multifragments of the two groups were compared.
The spatial displacement, intra-/extra-articular surface area, and start and end point in Group A were 10.9 mm (IQR, 8.4-15.2), 8.2 ± 2.6 cm, 17.9 ± 5.3 cm, 0.8° (IQR, -6.0-16.2), and 107.5° (IQR, 97.2-116.9), respectively. The results in Group B were 30.4 mm (IQR, 16.8-48.7), 4.1 ± 2.0 cm, 10.6 ± 4.4 cm, 29.5° (IQR, 19.2-38.0), and 117.5° (IQR, 98.2-127.2), respectively. Marginal impaction was defined by Letournel et al. All the differences between two groups were significant ( < 0.05). The fracture map in Group A showed an "L"-shaped pattern and a "cusp" on the ilium, and the PW was located at 1/5 to 1/4 of the posterosuperior part of the acetabulum. The fracture maps in Group B were scattered and lacked consistency, and the PWs were confined to 1/10 to 1/8 of the posterior acetabulum.
Quantitative measurements and fracture mapping represented the differences in morphological characteristics of PWs associated with complex acetabular fractures.
本研究旨在比较使用三维软件和骨折图技术的不同复杂髋臼骨折后柱后壁(PW)的形态差异,并最终为临床治疗提供帮助。
共纳入 114 例 PW 合并复杂髋臼骨折患者,根据 PW 损伤机制将所有患者分为两组:A 组(双柱和 PW)和 B 组(包括后柱和 PW、T 型和 PW、横型和 PW)。在标准模板的内、外表面生成骨折图。比较两组患者的影像学参数,包括空间移位、关节面面积、关节范围、边缘嵌插和骨折碎裂。
A 组患者的空间移位、内外关节面面积、起始点和终点分别为 10.9mm(IQR,8.415.2)、8.2±2.6cm、17.9±5.3cm、0.8°(IQR,-6.016.2)和 107.5°(IQR,97.2116.9)。B 组患者的空间移位、内外关节面面积、起始点和终点分别为 30.4mm(IQR,16.848.7)、4.1±2.0cm、10.6±4.4cm、29.5°(IQR,19.238.0)和 117.5°(IQR,98.2127.2)。边缘嵌插采用 Letournel 等的定义。两组间差异均有统计学意义( < 0.05)。A 组骨折图呈“L”形,髂骨上有“小角”,PW 位于髋臼后上 1/51/4 处。B 组骨折图较为分散,无一致性,PW 局限于髋臼后 1/101/8 处。
定量测量和骨折图显示了与复杂髋臼骨折相关的 PW 形态特征的差异。