Unclassified acetabular fractures: Do they really exist?

PURPOSE: Although Letournel classification is considered the corner stone for classifying acetabular fractures, however, it might not be perfectly inclusive. Unclassified fractures were reported by many authors. The aim of this case series is to report the incidence of unclassified acetabular fractures and description of these rare patterns and why they are considered unclassified acetabular fractures. METHODS: This is a retrospective consecutive case series. In the period between 1st January 2016 and 31st December 2017, 235 patients with 236 acetabular fractures were identified from our hospital records. Classification of the acetabular fractures according to Letournel was done by two surgeons. Any discrepancy in the classification between the two surgeons was resolved by the senior author. Before considering the fracture unclassifiable, all fractures were reviewed again by the two surgeon and the senior author. RESULTS: In the period between 1st January 2016 and 31st December 2017, 235 patients with 236 acetabular fractures were included in our study. Twenty-two fractures (9.3%) did not fit into any of the fracture types according to Letournel Classification as follows: 1 case (4.5%) was pure Quadrilateral plate fracture, 1 case (4.5%) was labral avulsion with tiny posterior wall rim, 1 case (4.5%) was pure articular impaction, 1 case (4.5%) was both columns fracture with posterior wall, 4 cases (18.2%) were anterior column and quadrilateral plate fracture, and 14 cases (63.8%) were T with posterior wall. CONCLUSION: Several acetabular fracture pattern could be considered unclassified fractures. These unique patterns may require special approaches or special fixation methods. However, this is not a call for a new classification for acetabular classification to include these new types. Subclassification or adding modifiers to Letournel classification can do the job.

Efficient hip joint distraction using the AO large femoral distractor in treating acetabular fractures associated with marginal impaction and intraarticular incarcerated fragments.

PURPOSE: The results after acetabular fracture are primarily related to the quality of articular reduction. Using the AO large femoral distractor, incarcerated fragments can be easily removed, and marginally impacted fragments can be elevated under direct visualization without further re-dislocating the joint. The current study aimed to evaluate our early results of using the AO large femoral distractor as an assisting tool during ORIF of acetabular fractures associated with marginal impaction or intraarticular incarcerated fragments. METHODS: Eighteen patients were included in this retrospective case series study diagnosed with an acetabular fracture associated with either marginal impaction injury or an intraarticular incarcerated fragment. On a usual operative table, all patients were operated upon in a prone position through the Kocher Langenbeck approach. The AO large femoral distractor was used to facilitate hip joint distraction. Postoperative fracture reduction and joint clearance were assessed in the immediate postoperative CT scans. RESULTS: The average age of the patients was 30 ± 8.2 years; 13 (72.2%) were males. All cases had a posterior wall fracture, and it was associated with transverse fractures, posterior column fractures, and T-type fractures in five (27.8%), two (11.1%), and one (5.6%) patients, respectively. Intraarticular incarcerated fragments were present in 13 (72.2%) cases and marginal impaction in five (27.8%). Fracture reduction measured on the postoperative CT scans showed an anatomical reduction in 14 (77.8%) patients, imperfect in four (22.2%), and complete clearance of the hip joint of any incarcerated fragments. CONCLUSION: The use of the AO large femoral distractor is a reliable and reproducible technique that can be applied to assist in the removal of incarcerated intraarticular fragments and to ease the reduction of marginally impacted injuries associated with acetabular fractures.

Anterolateral Bone Window for Revision Broken Cemented Stem of Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Fractured stem of the hip prosthesis is well documented in the literature. Although it is rare, it is considered as a challenging problem. Many techniques have been described to solve this problem. Purpose of the Study. Evaluation of the effect of anterolateral bone window for extraction of the cemented femoral stem of hemiarthroplasty in revision total hip replacement. METHODS: The study included eight revision hip arthroplasties in eight patients, with a broken stem of cemented (Thompson) hemiarthroplasty, which has been revised by the anterolateral proximal femoral window. All cases received cemented cups and cement-in-cement stems, except one case who received cementless long stem. Clinical follow-up of cases by Harries hip score (HHS) and X-ray. RESULTS: Functional improvement of HHS of all cases, with no signs of loosening, after a mean follow-up period of 1.5 years. CONCLUSION: Extraction of broken stem is a challenging procedure. Many techniques have been described for revision of cases with a fractured stem of hip prosthesis, but we think that the anterolateral femoral bone window is a reproducible technique due to the characteristics of simplicity, short-time procedure, less invasive, not requiring extra instruments, and can be successful for most patients.