Asetabulum Kırıkları Cerrahi Tedavisinde Posterior Yaklaşım: Klinik ve Radyolojik Sonuçlar

Year 2020, Volume: 27 Issue: 3, 375 - 381, 01.09.2020

Murat Topal Ali Aydın Ahmet Emre Paksoy Kemal Zencirli Ahmet Köse Vahit Yıldız Recep Dinçer

https://doi.org/10.17343/sdutfd.654398

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Giriş ve Amaç: Asetabulum kırıkları sık rastlanmayan, kompleks yaralanmalardır. Bu çalışmada posterior yaklaşımlarla opere ettiğimiz asetabulum kırıklı hastaların radyolojik ve fonksiyonel sonuçlarını değerlendirmeyi amaçladık.
Yöntem: 2011 ile 2014 yılları arasında asetabulum kırığı nedeniyle opere edilen, en az 1 yıllık takipleri yapılabilmiş olan 36 olgu bu çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Retrospektif olarak planlanan çalışmamızda kırık sınflandırması Letournel Judet sistemine göre, radyolojik değerlendirme Matta kriterlerine göre, fonksiyonel skorlar modifiye Merle d’Aubigne Postel sistemine göre yapıldı.
Bulgular: Toplam 36 olgunun 25’i sadece posterior yaklaşımla opere edilmişken 11’inde kombine anterior ve posterior yaklaşım uygulanmıştır. Komplikasyon oranları güncel literatürle uyumlu bulunmuştur. Fonksiyonel skorlar değerlendirildiğinde 29 (%80,6) olguda mükemmel ve iyi sonuç, 3 (%8,3) olguda orta, 4 (%11,1) olguda kötü sonuç elde edilmiş, radyolojik sonuçlar değerlendirildiğinde 29 (%80,6) olguda mükemmel ve iyi sonuç, 3 (%8,3) olguda orta, 4 (%11,1) olguda kötü sonuç elde edilmiştir.
Sonuç ve Çıkarımlar: Asetabulum kırıkları cerrahisi, teknik olarak zor, komplikasyon oranları yüksek olmasına rağmen deplase asetabulum kırıklarında açık redüksiyon ve internal fiksasyon endike olduğu durumlarda altın standart tedavi yöntemidir. Olgu sayısı kısıtlı olan 36 olguluk serimizde radyolojik ve fonksiyonel sonuçlarımızın güncel literatürle uyumlu olduğunu gördük.

Keywords

Asetabulum kırıkları, Posterior yaklaşım, Cerrahi tedavi

References

• 1. Browner BD. Skeletal trauma: basic science, management, and reconstruction. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2015. pp. 1107-1161.e1105.
• 2. Matta JM. Fractures of the Acetabulum: Accuracy of Reduction and Clinical Results in Patients Managed Operatively within Three Weeks after the Injury*. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery 1996; 78(11):1632-1645.
• 3. Letournel E, Judet R. Fractures of the acetabulum. Springer Science & Business Media; 1993.
• 4. Matta JM. Surgical approaches to fractures of the acetabulum and pelvis. Malibu, CA, USA: Joel M Matta, MD Inc 1989.
• 5. Matta JM, Merritt PO. Displaced acetabular fractures. Clinical orthopaedics and related research 1988; 230:83-97.
• 6. Letournel E. Acetabulum fractures: classification and management. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1980; 151:81-106.
• 7. Matta JM, Anderson LM, EPSTEIN HC, HENDRICKS P. Fractures of the Acetabulum: A Retrospective Analysis. Clinical orthopaedics and related research 1986; 205:230-240.
• 8. Matta JM, Mehne DK, Rom R. Fractures of the Acetabulum: Early Results of a Prospective Study. Clinical orthopaedics and related research 1986; 205:241-250.
• 9. Matta JM. Operative treatment of acetabular fractures through the ilioinguinal approach: a 10-year perspective. Journal of orthopaedic trauma 2006; 20(1):S20-S29.
• 10. d'Aubigné RM, Postel M. Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery 1954; 36(3):451-475. 11. Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery 1973; 55(8):1629-1632. 12. Giannoudis P, Grotz M, Papakostidis C, Dinopoulos H. Operative treatment of displaced fractures of the acetabulum A META-ANALYSIS. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, British Volume 2005; 87(1):2-9.
• 13. Giannoudis P, Bircher M, Pohlemann T. Advances in pelvic and acetabular surgery. Injury 2007; 38(4):395-396.
• 14. Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, Matta JM. Letournel Classification for Acetabular Fractures. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery 2003; 85(9):1704-1709.
• 15. Prevezas N, Antypas G, Louverdis D, Konstas A, Papasotiriou A, Sbonias G. Proposed guidelines for increasing the reliability and validity of Letournel classification system. Injury 2009; 40(10):1098-1103.
• 16. Ohashi K, El-Khoury GY, Abu-Zahra KW, Berbaum KS. Interobserver Agreement for Letournel Acetabular Fracture Classification with Multidetector CT: Are Standard Judet Radiographs Necessary? 1. Radiology 2006; 241(2):386-391.
• 17. Mehlman CT, Meiss L, DiPasquale TG. Hyphenated-history: the Kocher-Langenbeck surgical approach. Journal of orthopaedic trauma 2000; 14(1):60-64.
• 18. Rommens PM. The Kocher-Langenbeck approach for the treatment of acetabular fractures. European Journal of Trauma 2004; 30(4):265-273.
• 19. Negrin LL, Benson CD, Seligson D. Prone or lateral? Use of the Kocher-Langenbeck approach to treat acetabular fractures. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2010; 69(1):137-141.
• 20. Negrin LL, Seligson D. The Kocher-Langenbeck Approach: Differences in Outcome of Transverse Acetabular Fractures Depending on the Patient’s Position. European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 2010; 36(4):369-374.
• 21. Collinge C, Archdeacon M, Sagi HC. Quality of radiographic reduction and perioperative complications for transverse acetabular fractures treated by the Kocher-Langenbeck approach: prone versus lateral position. Journal of orthopaedic trauma 2011; 25(9):538-542.
• 22. Tannast M, Najibi S, Matta JM. Two to twenty-year survivorship of the hip in 810 patients with operatively treated acetabular fractures. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery 2012; 94(17):1559-1567.
• 23. Ochs BG, Marintschev I, Hoyer H, Rolauffs B, Culemann U, Pohlemann T, et al. Changes in the treatment of acetabular fractures over 15 years: Analysis of 1266 cases treated by the German Pelvic Multicentre Study Group (DAO/DGU). Injury 2010; 41(8):839-851.
• 24. Routt M, Swiontkowski M. Operative treatment of complex acetabular fractures. Combined anterior and posterior exposures during the same procedure. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery 1990; 72(6):897-904.
• 25. Kavalakkatt T, Arunlal K, Mathew AM. Complex acetabular fractures: Combined anterior and posterior approaches during same procedure. Kerala Journal of Orthopaedics 2013; 26(2).
• 26. Mears DC, Velyvis JH, Chang C-P. Displaced acetabular fractures managed operatively: indicators of outcome. Clinical orthopaedics and related research 2003; 407:173-186.
• 27. Kreder H, Rozen N, Borkhoff C, Laflamme Y, McKee M, Schemitsch E, et al. Determinants of functional outcome after simple and complex acetabular fractures involving the posterior wall. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, British Volume 2006; 88(6):776-782.
• 28. Madhu TS, Raman R, Giannoudis PV. Long-term outcome in patients with combined spinal and pelvic fractures. Injury 2007; 38(5):598-606.
• 29. Madhu R, Kotnis R, Al-Mousawi A, Barlow N, Deo S, Worlock P, et al. Outcome of surgery for reconstruction of fractures of the acetabulum THE TIME DEPENDENT EFFECT OF DELAY. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, British Volume 2006; 88(9):1197-1203.
• 30. Moed BR, WillsonCarr SE, Watson JT. Results of operative treatment of fractures of the posterior wall of the acetabulum. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery 2002; 84(5):752-758.
• 31. Schmidt AH, Teague DC, Surgeons AAoO, Association OT. Orthopaedic Knowledge Update: Trauma 4. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2010.
• 32. Giannoudis P, Kanakaris N, Sante ED, Morell D, Stengel D, Prevezas N. Acetabular fractures with marginal impaction Mid-term results. Bone & Joint Journal 2013; 95(2):230-238.
• 33. Petsatodis G, Antonarakos P, Chalidis B, Papadopoulos P, Christoforidis J, Pournaras J. Surgically treated acetabular fractures via a single posterior approach with a follow-up of 2-10 years. Injury 2007; 38(3):334-343.