Cargando…

Comparative Study of W-Shaped Angular Plate and Reconstruction Plate in Treating Posterior Wall Fractures of the Acetabulum

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the medium-term results of the reconstruction of posterior wall fractures using a W-shaped acetabular angular plate (WAAP) compared to those fixed using a reconstruction plate. METHODS: Between July 2006 and March 2009, we performed a retrospective study, which c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Qi, Chen, Wei, Wu, Xiaobo, Su, Yanling, Hou, Zhiyong, Zhang, Yingze
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3954867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24632754
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092210
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the medium-term results of the reconstruction of posterior wall fractures using a W-shaped acetabular angular plate (WAAP) compared to those fixed using a reconstruction plate. METHODS: Between July 2006 and March 2009, we performed a retrospective study, which collected data for any patient treated for a posterior acetabular wall fracture. At the time of treatment, patients were either treated using a WAAP or a pelvic reconstruction plate. The intraoperative fluoroscopic images for both groups were compared. The quality of reduction and radiological grading were assessed according to the criteria developed by Matta. The clinical assessment was based on a modified Merle d’Aubigne and Postel scoring. RESULTS: 53 patients met the inclusion criteria and were followed up for an average of 38 months. 25 patients were treated with a WAAP (study group), and 28 patients were treated with a pelvic reconstruction plate (control group). The intraoperative fluoroscopic images of the study group confirmed extra-articular screw placement in all cases. In the control group, intra-articular screw placement was observed intraoperatively in 5 patients (17.86%), and the definitive location of the periarticular hardware could not be determined in 4 patients (14.29%) during the operation. The differences between the two groups were statistically significant (p = 0.002). In contrast, the quality of fracture reduction, clinical outcomes, and radiological grading in the study group were not significantly different from those of the control group (p>0.05). The radiographic grade was strongly associated with the clinical outcomes in both the study and control groups (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Reconstruction of posterior wall fractures of the acetabulum using a WAAP can help avoid screw penetration of the hip joint, provide a stable fixation of the posterior wall, and ensure good clinical outcomes.